Allow me to Introduce Myself…

I am a married 39 year old EMT, parent of nine children (five sons, four daughters) and a currently serving Medic in the National Guard. I currently reside in a metropolitan city in the Midwest, though I’m a native Texan.

In case any are wondering, EngMed is short for Engineer Medic. I’m currently serving as a Platoon Medic in a Combat Engineer Company, so that seemed a fitting name, wouldn’t y’all think?

My interests vary between religion, politics, art, literature, hunting, camping, fishing, hiking, music, writing and serving the Lord. Yes, I am an evangelical Christian and I won’t ever shy away from the subject. I invite any to ask questions, debate and will gladly pray for any who ask.

In terms of politics, I’m a Conservative Constitutionalist. No, I’m not a Republican. I’m actually very disaffected with them, given that their commitment to conservative values tend to disappear faster than water on the surface of the sun.

I’m pro-gun, pro-life, pro-death penalty, and pro-limited government. I believe that the Constitution is the law of the land, not social whim.

I’m anti-Islam (a topic I will expand upon in the future), against virtually all forms of gun control, and I’m totally OK with the idea of legalizing marijuana, though I personally detest the stuff.

Well, I think that’s about all I have at this time. If y’all wanna know more, feel free to ask. I’ll just end with this quote:

“Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori.” “It is sweet and fitting to die for your country.”

Next Installment: The Moral and Religious Dilemma

I’ve dedicated nearly twelve years of my life to the Army. I’ve missed birthdays, holidays and much more, in service to the people of this country. In fact, this year was the first time I’ve been home for Father’s Day in years, and it’s due entirely to the birth of my youngest son, Judah.

I’ve never not been proud of this service, either. I was born to be a Soldier, and I rather figured I’d get to die one, too. Sadly, I suspect that is all about to change, and this ties in with my “What I Believe” series.

This evening, I learned that I will soon receive a briefing that I’ve been dreading for some time. The reason why I’ve been dreading it is that I knew it was coming and because I’m soon to be ordered to violate my religious beliefs.

In case any of you may be wondering, I believe that it’s better to be right before God, and wrong before the world, than the other way around. As such, it’s an order that I absolutely intend to refuse, which is a first for me. I’ve never been placed in moral jeopardy by my service before.

The briefing, and the directive it will deliver, relates to transgenders serving within our ranks. Yes, I’m opposed to the whole transgender issue, and here’s why.

First, it’s a violation of God’s Laws. Second, it makes no logical sense. Third and final, it forces me into a position that is a clear violation of my religious beliefs.

In the Book of Genesis, God creates mankind in His image, or Imago Dei. As such, every last one of us is an image-bearer of God. We can no more change that about ourselves than a rock can become a bird.

In creating us, God only made two: one male, one female. In this, it’s absolutely clear that He intended only for males and females to come together, to the exclusion of any other combination.

In Genesis 2:24, His intent is absolutely clear, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” This is exactly what the Lord intended, modern-day interpretations and social problems notwithstanding.

In terms of logic and practicality, there are things that simply aren’t being considered, beginning with the fact that Gender Dysphoria is classified as a type of mental illness.

It’s a full-on delusion, in which a person wants to have their body chopped up in order to become something they’re not. We’re supposed to treat people in a delusional state, not feed into it.

What’s more is I’m about to be ordered to play into those delusions. This is something I can’t do, because it’s dishonest, pointless and goes against my religious beliefs. Why feed into someone’s delusions when it is basically ineffective?

For example, the suicide rate for transgenders is 40% across the board. This goes for both pre-operative and post-operative transgenders. This means all those efforts to use the preferred pronouns, and feed into their worldview have been largely ineffective. Of course, this says nothing about the physical havok wreaked by the hormone therapy.

Adding to that is what Scripture has to say on the subject. In Deuteronomy 22:5, God says, “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.”

Note that God calls it an abomination. This is a word He doesn’t use often in Scripture, which means He feels very strongly about it. That means that it’s something we ought to pay very close attention to.

Going further, 1 Corinthians 6:19 points out, “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?” We belong to God, and don’t have leave to do whatever we like with our bodies, which would include gender reassignment surgery.

The fact of the matter is, feeding their delusion, up to and including support for their efforts to have gender reassignment surgery is a slap in the face of God. When you support this, you’re accusing Him of making a mistake. Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;”.

In reassigning someone’s gender, an exercise in futility I might add, you’re telling God He picked wrong when forming that person in the womb. Given that God is all-knowing and all-powerful, this makes absolutely no sense. If anyone is mistaken, it most certainly isn’t God.

Now, for my next point, we’re going to set all of the above aside. Part of the directive I’m to receive is that we are all ordered to treat people according to their declared gender in every sense of the word.

This means that a female who has declared herself a male must be treated like a male, and vise versa; a male who has declared himself a female must be treated as such. This includes sleeping arrangements, restrooms and showers.

In this, we males will be ordered to tolerate a woman in our barracks and even in our showers. It’s likely some of you might not know this, but Soldiers shower communally. This means we routinely see each other nude.

What this means for me, and others like me, is that we will be forced to spend time in the presence of a nude female who isn’t our wife. Even if nothing bad happens, this is still unacceptable.

Out of respect for my marriage and my wife, I deliberately avoid situations that could even create the impression of impropriety. That effort has suddenly become that much more difficult.

The obvious solution of avoiding the showers while females are in it is also fraught with potentially career-ending danger, as perceived avoidance based upon one’s biological gender is now grounds for an accusation of discrimination, through what’s known as an EO complaint. (EO = equal opportunity)

This places me between a rock and a hard place, however, I’d rather be right before God than the other way around. My intent is to file a complaint, hopefully with the help of a Chaplain, and make as much noise about this as I can.

In all likelihood, it may well end my career to do so. No matter, I had no intention of renewing my contract, so it would simply be hastening the inevitable.

Well folks, there you have it. Another aspect of my beliefs, along with the Scripture behind it.

The Trinity in the Old Testament (Part III)

Of course, we’re all familiar with the Holy Trinity: The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. They are the three, who make up the One. They are the perfect unity, shown throughout the New Testament as God, the Father; Jesus, the Son; and the Holy Spirit. When Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, the entire Trinity was present (Matt. 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-23). However, what about the book that existed before Jesus was born? Did the Trinity exist then, or did St. Paul simply make it all up, as some would insist?

As I’ve shown in the previous post, God is most certainly a plurality. However, the question has been posed before: If God isn’t just One, then how do we know He isn’t more than three? To answer the question of how many, we need to go back to the Tanakh (Old Testament) and examine Scripture, because the Trinity appears as a distinct grouping; primarily as the Lord God, The Angel of the Lord and the Spirit of the Lord. While there are other names applied to them, these are the most frequently used, so we will address them as such.

The Lord God

We all know Him. He is our Heavenly Father, the Great I AM, the Alpha and Omega. He is known as the infinite, uncreated God, who made this entire physical existence. He wrote all of the natural laws that govern this universe, along with the Law (Torah) He gave to Moses at Mt. Sinai. Without Him, none of us would exist. There is no question about that, He is God and Father to His people. (Deuteronomy 32:6; Isaiah 63:16; Malachi 2:10)

The Angel of the Lord

Scripture shows that The Angel of the Lord is pre-incarnation Jesus. He was present when Abraham was ordered to sacrifice his son, Isaac, and even told him to put his knife away. There are some things that should be noted, though.

First, you will note that His name is “The Angel of the Lord”, not an angel of the Lord. What does that mean? It means that it is a title, rather than an assignment. In Hebrew, the word for “angel” translates as “messenger”, so an angel of the Lord is simply a messenger of the Lord. Meanwhile, The Angel of the Lord isn’t just a mere assignment, it’s a title, a position. Given Jesus’ mission on this earth a little over 2,000 years ago, it’s more than fitting that He would be The Angel of the Lord. To be sure, there will be those who will argue that The Angel of the Lord isn’t divine. However, of the 23 passages which feature Him, 11 show Him to be of divine origin. Of those 11, three show that He isn’t just divine, but distinct from the Lord God. How can that be, if God isn’t a plurality?

In Genesis 16:9-14, we see The Angel of the Lord visiting with Hagar as she hides in the desert from Sarai and tells her to return to her mistress, “9 The Angel of the Lord said to her, “Return to your mistress, and submit yourself under her hand.” 10 Then the Angel of the Lord said to her, “I will multiply your descendants exceedingly, so that they shall not be counted for multitude.” 11 And the Angel of the Lord said to her: “Behold, you are with child, And you shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, Because the Lord has heard your affliction. 12 He shall be a wild man; His hand shall be against every man, And every man’s hand against him. And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” 13 Then she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, You-Are-the-God-Who-Sees (Italics added for emphasis); for she said, “Have I also here seen Him who sees me?” 14 Therefore the well was called Beer Lahai Roi; observe, it is between Kadesh and Bered.”

Did you note what she called The Angel of the Lord? She called Him God, just as plain as day. Yet, the Scripture is clear, in that she most certainly wasn’t speaking to the Lord God. If God is Unitarian in nature, then wouldn’t this be blasphemy? Of course, this is not the only example. In Genesis, Chapter 2, we have the story of Abraham being ordered to sacrifice his son, Isaac, as a test of his faith. This is established in verses 1-2,

“Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!”

And he said, “Here I am.”

2 Then He said, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (Please note, God is the one who ordered Abraham, not anyone else)

Later in the passage, we have a conversation between Abraham and The Angel of the Lord,

“11 But the Angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!”

So he said, “Here I am.”

12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” (Genesis 2:11-12)

Who was it that he didn’t withhold his son from? God is the one who ordered him to sacrifice Isaac, The Angel of the Lord is the one who ordered him to stay his hand. Who is The Angel of the Lord to countermand the Lord God, if they aren’t in fact equals? It’s clear that The Angel of the Lord is both divine and separate from God. The Angel of the Lord plainly says that Abraham didn’t withhold Isaac from Him. Stay with me, there is one more example to show.

Now, we have Exodus 3, the famous story of the burning bush. In this story, as you may all recall, the conversation was between God and Moses, as Moses is ordered to return to Egypt to convince the Pharaoh to release the Hebrews from the bondage of slavery. Exodus 3:1-6,

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. 3 Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”

4 So when the Lord saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!”

And he said, “Here I am.”

5 Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” 6 Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.”

Note that the first to appear to Moses is The Angel of the Lord. Yet, it states that he spoke to the Lord. I highly doubt that The Angel of the Lord was there simply to announce the arrival of the Lord. If He had been, it would have said so. Instead, we have an imperceptible transition from The Angel of the Lord to the Lord which suggests that they are one in the same.

The Holy Spirit

In Genesis 1:2, we see reference to the Spirit of God, which is the Holy Spirit of the Lord God. Throughout the Old Testament, He is alternately known as the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord and even the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 63:11-12). In all of the Scriptural references pointing to the Spirit of God, He’s entering into a human and filling them with wisdom, knowledge and also making them prophesy in the name of the Lord. He is the breath of God. When God speaks, He’s what moves.

As a member of the Godhead, He is co-equal with the Father and the Son. Yet, He and the Son both submit to the Father’s authority. All three are eternal, yet, the Son and Holy Spirit emanate from the Father. They exist coequally, as a divine community. He does occupy one special place, among all the other members of the Godhead. Denial of Him, or blaspheming Him, is known as the unforgivable sin. (Matthew 12:31-33)

Based upon the Scriptural evidence at hand, it’s clear that God is a plurality, that He is a community made up of three: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. All three have existed eternally, without beginning or end, are coequal, and that the Son and the Spirit both submit to the Father’s authority. With that being said, it is now time to move into the next topic: the Messiah.

The Trinity (Part II)

As I mentioned in my last post, I found that I had a challenge before me. In order to prove that Jesus is both the Messiah, and God in the flesh, I needed to first prove the Trinity. This became paramount because some of the arguments against these two ideas came from Old Testament Scripture. I realized that I needed to find similar sources for my arguments, as my opponents wouldn’t accept the New Testament as a reliable source.

Thankfully, God saw fit to send me the right people. I’ve since learned that it’s a lot harder to debate Jewish people than it is Muslims. Not only are they more stubborn and prideful, but the truth of the matter is I can’t refute their Scripture, without undermining my own position. I can come up with numerous ways to prove that Muhammad was a false prophet, that the Qur’an is false, and that Allah is in fact Satan. All I need is the Bible and history to prove that.

How do I prove that Judaism is wrong, with regards to the Messiah, when it’s their Scripture? Well, as it turns out, I wasn’t without resources. Not only did I need the Bible, but I also needed the Talmud, The Zohar and hours worth of patience, in order to prove that they aren’t reading the Scripture right. I also managed to find something very surprising about Jewish history, one which some might not have considered.

What is the Trinity?

The Trinity is God. He is made up of three parts, contained in one entity, known collectively as God. Most of us know the Trinity as: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That’s how it appears in the New Testament, as evidenced by the moment of Jesus’ baptism, when the entire Trinity appears together. (Matthew 3:13-17) Yet, how many have stopped to consider whether or not the Trinity can be found in the Old Testament? Every critic I’ve encountered has given the same answer: NO!

Thankfully, I didn’t allow them to stop me, and found that they were wrong. The Trinity can be found all over the Old Testament. However, they’re known by different names: the Lord God, The Angel of the Lord (Genesis 16, 21, 22, 31; Exodus 3, 14; Numbers 22; Judges 2, 5, 6, 13; 2 Samuel 24; 1 Chronicles 21; 1 Kings 19; 2 Kings 1, 19; 2 Chronicles 32; Isaiah 37; Zechariah 1, 3, 12; Psalm 34, 35), and the Spirit of God (Exodus 31:3; Numbers 24:2; Judges 3:10; 1 Samuel 19:20; 2 Samuel 23:2-3; Psalm 51, 104:30; Isaiah 63:11-12, 48:16; Ezekiel 11:5; Job 33:4). While they’re known by other names in Scripture, these are the names they’re called most often.

In my effort to prove the Trinity, I’ll begin with a quote from The Zohar, which is a book on Jewish mysticism written a few centuries after Christ died and resurrected. With regards to YHWH it says,

“The mystery in the word YHWH: there are three steps, each existing by itself; nevertheless they are One, and are so united that one cannot be separated from the other. The same Holy and Ancient One, appears as three heads within one, and He is the head elevated three times. The Ancient Holy One, described as three and also the other lights, which are delegated from His source are included in the three.”

Moving on into Scripture, we’ll go all the way to the beginning, as in the literal beginning. In Genesis 1:1-2, we find the idea of God as a plurality hinted at in the text. This short passage mentions the Lord God and the Spirit of God in a manner that suggests separation and distinction.

Next, there is Genesis 1:26, in which God says, “let us make man in our image”. One of my Jewish opponents asserted that this was God speaking to the angels, but that doesn’t make any sense given that we are made in His image, not the angel’s. Therefor, one must ask, was God speaking to Himself, or was someone else there? God as a plurality helps one make sense of the situation we’re presented with.

The next verse we have is Deuteronomy 6:4, which says,

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!” (NKJV)

In Hebrew: “Shema Y’isra’el: Adonai Eluheinu, Adonai Echad!”

In the original Hebrew, this a verse where God is named three times. Both “Adonai” and “Elohim” are names that have been applied to God. In the case of this verse, He is named three times. Why might that be?

We have a verse which not only names God three times, but which refers to Him in the plural tense. The tenses “-im” (Elohim) and “-inu” (Eluheinu) are masculine plural forms. In the case of “inu”, it is the plural possessive pronoun-suffix denoting things which belong to us. In this case, it’s translated as “our God”. However, one could make the case that it could also translate as “our Gods”, though I wouldn’t venture to do that myself.

Then there is the final word in verse 6:4, “Echad”. While it does mean “one”, it means “one” in the same sense as “one” in English. It can refer to a single entity, or a grouping: one person, or one group of people. When you combine that word with a word given in the plural sense, but used as singular, you have a new dimension added to the overall picture. You have the Lord God appearing in a whole new light.

To illustrate, here are just two verses in which Echad is used in this sense, i.e. more than one individual being brought into unity. First, Genesis 2:24, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” In the original Hebrew, the “one” in “one flesh” is “Echad”, signifying that two separate people (a man and his wife) will be joined together into a singular entity.

In Genesis 11:6, we have another example, “And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.” The word Echad is used in both “people are one”, and “one language”. Again, we have a situation in which the word for “one” is used to signify a grouping.

As if further verification was really even needed, we shall return to The Zohar to see what it says about Deuteronomy 6:4, which it describes as “three who are one”, “Only through faith, in the vision of the Holy Spirit, the mystery of the audible voice is similar to this, for though it is One, yet it consists of three elements: Fire, Air, and Water.”

It’s clear that God is a plurality, and that His Word was written in such a way as to make His nature clear. The Almighty Father is indeed complex, so much so that no human mind will ever be able to fully understand Him. Which is just as well, given that we wouldn’t follow a god we can fully understand. We humans have a hard enough time following a God who is a limitless mystery to us.

In part three, I’ll continue to cover the Trinity and my argument for its existence in the Old Testament. It will be when I delve further into the Scriptural references I’ve provided thus far.

It’s time…(part I)

I’ve spent a lot of time considering what I would say here. I promised that I would write on this topic, as a way to help share the Word of God with as many people as possible. A lot of research, thought and prayer have gone into this, so bear with me. Some of this will be a bit dry and technical, but there is a reason for it.

One day I was on YouTube, watching a presentation by Dr. Frank Turek. For those who might not know, he is a Christian Apologist, and the author of a book entitled, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”. I strongly recommend that people study his work. It’s very insightful.

During his presentation, he made mention of something that I hadn’t really thought about, or considered. He said that 75% of all Christian teens sent away to college would leave the faith by the time of their graduation. I was staggered by that, given that my oldest is now 18. I mean, what does her future hold, if she has only a 25% chance of retaining her faith?

It goes deeper than that for me. You see, for much of her life, I was ambivalent about Christianity. I never renounced my faith, but more or less went into a kind of spiritual hibernation. The end result is, my two oldest kids received very little by way of spiritual instruction from me. I’m now working to fix that problem, especially given that my second oldest is 16, and will be a Junior this coming fall. I want to make sure he’s as prepared as I can make him.

The Beginning

Back in December I found myself embroiled in an online debate regarding Islamic Doctrine and its prescribed treatment of the Kafir, or unbelievers. Much to my surprise, I was facing down arguments from two Jews and three Muslims, all of whom argued strenuously against my assertion that Islam is a supremacist doctrine. I ultimately had to back out because I simply couldn’t keep track of who was saying what, and found myself struggling to avoid calling people by the wrong names.

During the debate, I noticed that all five of them were forming a unified front against Christian Doctrine. In short order, I was forced into the position of defending the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Messiahship of Jesus. Unfortunately, I quickly realized that I wasn’t prepared to argue these rather fundamental points.

This fight actually did me a huge favor, and I’m grateful to the men who helped me identify and fix these deficiencies. At the time of this debate, my knowledge of the Trinity and Jesus as Messiah were only skin-deep, given that the only training I’d received in these areas were half-remembered but utterly inadequate confirmation classes from a little more than two decades ago. I owe them a huge debt of gratitude, because they forced me to realize that I didn’t know my Lord and Savior as well as I should.

The Next Step

For the next several months, I sort of waded into a self-paced, self-designed study program, focusing on the Scripture surrounding Jesus, and His mission to bring salvation to all mankind. It began as a study of the Messianic prophesies found in the Old Testament, and eventually branched out into a study of Trinitarian texts associated with it.

It wasn’t long before I made a rather eye-opening discovery. Without the Trinity, much of the Messianic texts make absolutely no sense at all. Why? Many of those texts refer to a Messiah who is not only divine in nature, but who is God Himself. It quickly became clear that I would have to prove the Trinity before I can even think about arguing for Jesus as the Messiah.

I’ve been reading Scripture, found in both my copy of the Complete Jewish Bible and in my wife’s New King James Version Study Bible, as well as multiple other books. I’ve also watched and listened to numerous videos on YouTube, engaged in long conversations with my pastor, and basically worn a hole in Google, in my endless search for even greater knowledge of my Lord and Savior. I’ve also managed to acquire a decent library of books relating to Scripture, which I’ll be drawing on to build this series.

Not to be left out, I’ve also studied Jewish and Muslim materials, including the Qur’an, the Tanakh, the Talmud, the works of Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, and various others, all in my pursuit of knowledge and understanding on these topics. What will follow this post is the fruit of that labor, shared in the hopes that I can inspire others to undertake the same journey I did. Believe me, it’s well worth it.

Well, without further ado, I shall take the time to close out this post, so that I may follow up with Part II. As always, I wish everyone a blessed day, and may the Lord bless all of you.


Trump’s immigration policy has exiled tax-paying, working-class people of Mexican descent to limbo in Tijuana.

via The Faces of Deportation in Southern California — Longreads

The first thing I noticed about this article is the hypocrisy. The expectation is that we’re supposed to be angry with Trump, because he didn’t stick with his predecessor’s immigration policies. I’m sorry, but President Golfcart had the chance to handle this situation correctly, and chose to be a coward.

To borrow one of his phrases, let’s be clear, if you’re in this country illegally, then you’re already a criminal. The idea of allowing an illegal immigrant to stay here, because they happen to work hard and have a family, is completely bogus. I mean, do we do the same for the bank robber and the murderer? No! Of course, we don’t.

As I’ve said before, I’m all for immigration reform on our end. I’m all for shortening the waiting time for those trying to come here legally. Is it tragic that families are often broken up when illegals are deported? Yes, it absolutely is.

However, no more, or less tragic than the families ripped apart when Americans are convicted of felonies and taken from their families for anywhere from one year, to the remainder of their lifetimes (depending on their crimes).

Why are we to feel offense when non-citizen criminals are removed and sent to the country they came from, yet, feel nothing when American families are torn apart through the criminal actions of one of our fellow citizens? In both cases, someone has committed a crime.

If you find yourself in disagreement with me, then you’re part of the problem.

On Illegal Immigration: Thoughts From the son of a Legal Immigrant

When he was 15, my father was brought from Mexico over to this country, by my grandmother. They came over through legal channels and settled in the Rio Grande valley of South Texas.

Over the course of the next several decades, my father’s side of the family became as American as any Mexican could. We work, pay taxes, vote and even serve in the Armed Forces.

To any who ask, I declare myself an American of Mexican descent. As I was born here, to an American mother, it’s the most fitting way to describe me.

I freely admit, I’m too White for the Mexicans, and too Mexican for the Whites. I’m an Aztec surrounded by Euros, and I’ve come to like it that way.

There’s a certain amount of fun that comes from being the odd man out, especially when dealing with social situations. Thankfully, I’ve encountered very little discrimination, though I don’t really think I’d care if I did.

With all that being said, I’d like to address the Trump-shaped elephant in the room. It’s likely that it’s about time I did. After all, he is my new Commander-in-Chief.

Allow me to begin by stating that I stand directly opposed to illegal immigration. If you didn’t come here through legal channels, then you have no business being here. It’s that simple.

I fully understand why so many jump borders to get here. Between the crap economy in places like Mexico, the governments so corrupt they barely function and criminal elements like the Cartels and street gangs, it’s no wonder people desperately want to come here. I get it, I really do.

That doesn’t change the fact that every day spent within our borders is a criminal act, if one doesn’t enter through legal channels. It really doesn’t.

Let’s be real, here. Opposing illegal immigration isn’t an act of racism. It is the act of standing in opposition to criminal activity.

It is someone standing up and saying, “This is my country. You’re absolutely welcome to come here and become a part of this country, so long as you do it the right way.” How can anyone mistake that for racism?

Don’t get me wrong, the U.S. government is just as much to blame for this problem. With an arbitrarily low cap on immigration, there exists an absolutely mind-blowing bottleneck of applications for legal immigration.

As it stands, the waiting list is roughly a decade long, with many people becoming more desperate with each passing year. It’s an expensive, slow-moving hell that is inescapable, inexcusable and unnecessary.

I have what I think might be a workable solution to this problem. If, for some completely insane reason, we can’t raise that immigration cap to something more reasonable, why not make the wait more bearable?

I propose that, as part of the process of waiting in line to immigrate legally, applicants be granted work visas, conditional on the results of a full background check to ensure the applicant isn’t going to be a problem on the U.S. side of the border.

In this regard, they will have a period of time which will allow them to learn our laws, our language and our culture. They’ll be working legally, which means they’ll be paying taxes.

This has benefits for all involved. First, they’ll have the money they need to support their families, while they wait their turn. That will, by itself, cut down on the number of people jumping across the border. Why would they mess with a good thing?

How does this benefit the U.S.? First, increased tax revenue. As they’re waiting, they will be working and paying taxes. Who would argue against increased tax revenue?

Then there’s the effect it’ll have on the Cartels. They make a lot of money smuggling people across the border. Each Coyote they employ charges thousands of dollars to guide people across the border. It’s big business for them.

Imagine a situation that not only drains away the money they would have made smuggling people across the border, but also impacts their drug smuggling by making smugglers stand out all the more.

With fewer people going through Coyotes, our Border Patrol agents would have an easier time spotting smugglers. This, in turn, means they’d catch more of them. Win, win.

Truth be told, I find myself  more and more perplexed by this situation. People arguing back and forth over what’s obviously a rather simple to understand problem. Our current immigration policies simply don’t work, and have contributed to a major problem for us.

Trump can build that wall, to his heart’s content, but it won’t solve the problem. As the old saying goes, “When you build a better mouse trap, someone builds a better mouse.” People will find a way passed it, unless something else is done alongside it. In this case, make the legal route more inviting, while allowing the wall to do its thing. So, why not try something that hasn’t been done, yet?

Hello All, how have we been?

It is a little strange to be sitting here, in front of the computer, and finally getting the chance to type this out. For the better part of a month, I have mulled over how to approach this next bit, because it requires much thought, and more tact than I am used to employing.

In case any of you had noticed, I have not posted in awhile. Yes, life has been really busy, but I think that is because God was preparing the way for something new and challenging. I hope y’all can keep up with me on this.

A few months back, I mentioned that I was beginning a new job. This was to be a great new opportunity, with better pay and better benefits; only a five minute drive from my house. In fact, when I compared it to the job I had previous to it, I would have been a fool to pass up on the offer. Sadly, I was let go just shy of my 60 day mark.

I was not let go because of something I did. Rather, it was something someone else did. That’s right, someone else screwed the pooch, and I was made the scapegoat. It was a very humbling experience, one I won’t soon forget. It’s a good thing I don’t hold grudges.

Where I tie into the whole situation is, someone lost a portion of my paperwork. This paperwork just had to be the most important of all the paperwork that gets turned in at the end of shift. This paperwork was so important, it’s loss caused more than $150,000 worth of product to go on hold, rather than out of the loading dock and on to the consumers. Needless to say, heads had to roll for this.

Now, I know for a fact that I turned it in. How do I know? Well, because my union steward informed me of the fact as he was escorting me out. He said that one of the Quality Assurance people lost my paperwork, right after they signed off on it. In short, I was punished for someone else’s very expensive mistake.

Unfortunately, my union wasn’t able to help me. As I’d been employed for fewer than 90 days, my (now former) employer reserved the right to terminate for any reason they saw fit, without recourse. It was in the contract. Needless to say, I was very quickly up a creek without a paddle, boat or life jacket.

What’s a man to do, in a situation such as this? Well, I ultimately chose to trust in God. I know He has my back, no matter what. I’m glad I did, because He came through in the most surprising way.

Let me paint the picture for you. Here we are, slowly feeling the financial pinch that my lost job brought on; not to mention that little bit of somber reflection and depression that comes with the sudden loss of a job. I would be lying if I said I didn’t hit a little bit of a low point during that time, but that was all to change.

One Sunday, my wife and I managed to get ourselves to church. We don’t often get to go, because of work schedules, kids, etc. While there, I got to speaking with one of the other guys there. He asked about my job, and I let him in on the sordid details.

Not only did he offer me a ray of hope, he got me my new job. The new job is grueling, and leaves my hands feeling sore, swollen and inflexible. I’m working on an overnight shift, which means I don’t get to sleep next to my wife. However, this job is an absolute God-send.

Within the next year, I’ll be making more money than I’ve ever made before. Not only will I be able to pay all of my bills, take care of my family and do all the things a general lack of funds made nearly impossible for me to do, but I’ll also be able to make regular charitable donations. That’s what one must do, when handed this kind of blessing from our Lord. One must give it away, freely.

This leads me to the topic of my future works, the question of why I believe in what I believe. I make no bones about the fact that I’m an evangelical Christian, and all of the usual sociopolitical stances that come with it. I’m pro-gun, pro-life, pro-death penalty, pro-limited government, pro-Israel, anti-Islam, anti-redefinition of marriage, etc.

Up until now, I’ve gone in-depth into the reasons why I’m anti-Islam. The ultimate goal of Islam is Sharia Law, in spite of what the majority of American Muslims might insist. The only peace Islam seeks is the peace achieved when the entire world is firmly planted under the boot of Sharia. I’ve studied the Qur’an, the Ahadith, the Sira of Muhammad and Sharia. I know what all of it says about the treatment of infidels, and I don’t want that for my children. Ever.

But, what of my other stances? Well, I think it’s time to delve into more of that, in the hopes that I might be able to 1)Foster understanding between people on both sides of the aisle, 2) help bring God to a few people and 3) cause people to maybe sit back and think hard about their own core beliefs. We shall see what the future brings.

At this time, I’ll leave with this. Over the course of the foreseeable future, I’m going to say things that will make people angry. I will offend people, upset people, maybe even trigger people. Know this, I don’t care who I make angry. My job here is to speak Truth, not “truths”, to strike a match in the darkness and bring people to an awareness of the prison that they all currently live in.

Of the great many things I’ve learned in life, I’ve learned that the opposite of Love isn’t Hate. Contrary to popular belief, hatred hasn’t a single thing to do with love. It isn’t even it’s opposite. Hatred is an emotion born from fear, fed by ignorance and encouraged by stupidity.

What then is the opposite of Love? That would be Indifference. To be indifferent to something means that you don’t even consider it worth the effort it takes to feel anything regarding it. It’s simply non-existent to you, a blip.

My primary reason for speaking out the way I do has everything to do with Love, even if my words at times seem rather harsh. The best analogy I can come up with is the relationship I have with my children. I love them more than words can express. If it were required of me, I would gladly sacrifice my life for theirs. I would fight for them, die for them and drive hard through life for them.

However, I won’t hesitate to let them know when what they’re doing is wrong. I won’t hesitate for one second to let them know that they’ve fallen short of the standards my wife and I have set for them. Why? Because I love them so much, I want to see them succeed in life.

So, as you’re reading this, and the posts yet to come, understand that the things I’ll say will come from a place of love, understanding and a desire to see all readers succeed in one way or another, just as my Lord and Savior did for me. Though He could have shrugged off His restraints, healed His own wounds and walked away, He chose to stay the course and die for me…and you. Can I do less than follow His example?

Combating Political Islam — The Counter Jihad Report

Claremont Institute, by David Reaboi and Kyle Shideler, December 9, 2016: Throughout his presidential campaign, Donald Trump voiced beliefs about national security that many Americans have shared since, at least, the early days of the Obama administration. The inability to speak honestly and coherently about the enemy and its ideology, Trump argued, has repeatedly led […]

via Combating Political Islam — The Counter Jihad Report

Islam and America: What Would Muhammad do?

If you would, please take a moment and imagine the way cancer works. When one begins to develop cancer, are they immediately aware of it, or does it take awhile for the signs and symptoms to come together in such a way that one’s Doctor thinks to run the right tests?

In this installment of my refutation of PBS’s “Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet”, I will tackle the topic of Muhammad and America, which will also serve to highlight the ongoing threat of “radical” Islam, and the ways jihad mimics the onset of cancer.

In the article, the following is asserted about Islam:

  1. Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all monotheistic.
  2. Islam advocates the right to participate in society, educate oneself, and pursue a profession.
  3. The Qur’an, on which Islamic laws are based, enjoins Muslims to govern themselves by discussion and consensus.
  4. Islam is institutionally egalitarian and its houses of worship are racially and ethnically integrated.
  5. The Pledge of Allegiance (one nation under God) and Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (all people are “created equal”) expresses themes that are also basic to Islam.

In this post, we will examine those assertions through the lens of Islamic Doctrine, and see for ourselves the real picture. Sadly, this will get a bit scary, but don’t say I didn’t warn you. Some of the implications are rather stark.

Not too long ago, I was speaking with my Pastor about my Blog, and he decided to help me by loaning me one of his books. The book he loaned me is, “The Blood of Lambs”, by Kamal Saleem, a former PLO terrorist turned Christian apologist.

In reading that book, I feel that I’m much more capable of writing this particular post. Mr. Saleem writes that he grew up in Beirut, Lebanon, was raised by very devout Muslim parents and was steeped in the ideology of jihad. He writes that his goal as a child was nothing short of waging jihad against the Jews of Israel, and America. His time as a warrior for Islam began when he was about seven years old, with a mission to smuggle weapons into Israel.

After fighting numerous battles against Israelis, Christians in the Lebanese Civil War, Soviets in Afghanistan and various others, he decided to take on the life of a traveling salesman. His job was to sell jihad to rich, well-connected Saudi royals, in order to continue funding the PLO, and he was quite successful.

He eventually decided to make his way to America, and use the financial backing of a Saudi Sheik to begin recruiting Americans. On this, he said, “An open society with constitutionally protected freedom of speech and religion, which prides itself on its embrace of foreign cultures, was the perfect place to teach a message of hatred in broad daylight. I was a master at reaching the poor and those who perceived themselves oppressed. I taught them that Allah cared for them. I found them jobs, mentored them, and invited them to fellowship with my jihadist brothers, who all the while never mentioned jihad. Once the converts were hooked, we turned them over to the imams at small “apartment mosques” to be radicalized.”

Through a serious turn of events, he found himself in a situation where his life was turned completely upside down. While there, he discovered that the things he’d been told his entire life about Christians and Jews were completely untrue, and it resulted in his conversion to Christianity. That’s when his adventure took off.

Today, he tours around, sounding the alarm, speaking out the words that too many are unwilling to hear, and letting people know about the truth of Islam. His book will provide the backdrop for this post, so without further ado, here we go.


Let’s begin with a definition of the term “Monotheism”. Monotheism is defined as the doctrine or belief that there is only one God. I know, some of you are looking at the screen and wondering why I’m telling you what you already know. There’s method to my madness, and this is due to the fact that someone reading this might not be familiar with the term. Now that we’re all on the same page, let’s move on.

While it’s true that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all monotheistic religions, there are a few points of contention. First off, according to Islamic Doctrine, the Christian Trinitarian Doctrine is nothing short of blasphemy. Why? Because they believe that we actually worship three gods: God, Jesus and (in some cases) Mary, the Mother of Jesus. In other words, they regard us as polytheistic. Even the point that the Trinity is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit falls short in their minds, as a Triune God smacks of polytheism. “How can God be three separate beings?”, they reason.

Obviously, Judaism is monotheistic, though the Islamic dispute with the Jews comes from an entirely different direction. More on that later. That just leaves Islam, which I submit isn’t truly monotheistic. Here’s why.

The Qur’an affirms the Truth of Scripture (see my previous work), making the Bible a reliable source in this matter. In the Ten Commandments, there are the Second and Third Commandments, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”, and ““You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.(Exodus 20:3-6)

What does it mean to have another god? Well, anything you place in order of importance above your relationship with God would count as another god. It can be anything, work, drugs, alcohol, sex, etc. This includes adhering to false teachings, of which the Qur’an and other Islamic literature is full of, including the belief that God is not the Father of anyone, and that the only relationship one can have with Him is that of a slave and master.

Additionally, as I highlighted in a previous post, the deity worshiped by Muslims is most certainly not the God of the Bible. He doesn’t possess the same attributes, the same temperament or even the right name. It’s worth noting that Arabic Christians actually refer to God as “Elahi”, not “Allah”. Similarly, Jesus is Yasua, not Isa. In short, they worship a god other than Jehovah, follow the teachings of a false prophet and revere a book to the point where they’re willing to fight and die for it.

To illustrate the point, if you were to take a King James Version of the Bible, and begin tearing pages out of it in front of a Christian, how would they react? Would you feel confident that they wouldn’t actually hurt you? Odds are good that you’re coming out of that encounter unscathed. Not 100%, mind you, as some might forget themselves, but generally speaking the response won’t be violent. Now, imagine that you would do the same in front of a Muslim, with a Qur’an. Do you think you’d come out of that encounter unscathed? Not likely, as they revere that book tremendously. In fact, one might say they idolize it, wouldn’t you think?

Participation in Society

Within a limited sense, the assertion that Islam advocates the participation in society is true. However, as I covered in my post regarding Muhammad and women, it’s safe to say that women can only enjoy as much participation as their men will allow. If Daddy or Husband are agreeable to it, a Muslim woman could own a business, become successful and enjoy life. Just don’t get the idea that the man in charge of her can’t somehow shut the whole thing down.

Case in point, the story of Amina and Sarah Said. Their father, an Egyptian-born cab driver named Yaser Said, shot and killed them one night, in Irving, TX. Why? Because he didn’t like that they were becoming westernized, and was infuriated that they were dating. That’s it, no other reason needed.

This brings up the topic of Honor Killing in Islam. While the general consensus is that Honor Killing isn’t actually allowed in Islam, there are Qur’anic verses that can support the practice. For example, Qur’an 9:73 says, “O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.”

Note that hypocrites are mentioned in this verse. Islamic Doctrine defines a hypocrite as any Muslim who doesn’t follow Islamic Doctrine to the letter. “It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.” Qur’an 33:36

Depending on the offense, hypocrites can face up to a death sentence, under Islamic Law. As such, they’re limited on what they can do, who they can associate with, who they can do business with, etc. The only argument Islamic scholars have against the practice is that it circumvents the Sharia courts, which means someone is taking the law into their own hands.


As has been established, the Qur’an actually limits people. A given group of Muslims may make their own decisions, but it must be done within the very narrow framework of Islam. This means that they can’t decide they don’t want to follow one of the teachings of Muhammad, because they don’t like it. Not only does Qur’an 33:36 make that clear, but so does Qur’an 2:216-217, “Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not. They ask you about the sacred month – about fighting therein. Say, “Fighting therein is great [sin], but averting [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah. And fitnah is greater than killing.” And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able. And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever-for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally.

Not only that, but the Qur’an also discourages Muslims from becoming friends with non-believers. Qur’an 5:51-52, “O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.”

There is an exception to the rule about taking unbelievers as friends. “Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security.” Qur’an 3:28 In other words, they are allowed to befriend us, if they feel the need to be protected from us, as in bodyguards. Again, with the Taqiyya.


The assertion of egalitarianism within their houses of worship makes me question how they define the term. When my wife and I go to church, we are allowed to sit together, we worship together, we pray together. In our home, we pray together, we worship together and we seek relationship with God together. Am I the spiritual leader of my home? Yes, however, that doesn’t mean we’re unequal.

When it comes to most matters of spirituality, she’s the one I confer with, argue with and even learn from. It’s only on spiritual matters pertaining specifically to men that I turn to someone other than her, usually our Pastor. According to Scripture, this is how it’s supposed to be done. Regrettably, this doesn’t happen anywhere near enough in our society.

In the Mosques, men and women are segregated. Couples can’t worship together, they can’t pray together. There exists a separation that prevents any form of spiritual intimacy within a marriage. It’s simply a case of “the Qur’an and hubby say so”. Kamal Saleem actually commented on this in his book, “The Blood of Lambs”, when he stated that the general idea about women was that they were “incubators”, fit only for having babies, cooking meals and occasionally blowing themselves up. Woman aren’t of any real consequence, with regards to the Qur’an. I mean, Muhammad firmly believed that women would make up the majority of those inhabiting Hell. How can things be egalitarian if there’s a wall between genders that prevents true spiritual intimacy between husband and wife?

Racial and Ethnic Equality

According to the Hadith literature, Muhammad was actually a white man. In Sahih al-Bukhari, Number 63, “Narrated: Anas bin Malik: While we were sitting with the Prophet in the mosque, a man came riding on a camel. He made his camel kneel down in the mosque, tied its foreleg and then said: “Who amongst you is Muhammad?” At that time the Prophet was sitting amongst us (his companions) leaning on his arm. We replied, “This white man reclining on his arm.”

What’s even less known is that he also kept numerous slaves, to include Africans. (Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 91, Number 368, Vol. 8, Book 73, Number 182) Not only that, but he didn’t seem to have a very high opinion of Africans, as evidenced by Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 89, Number 256, “Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s messenger said, “You should listen to and obey your Imam even if he was an Ethiopian (Black) slave whose head looks like a raisin.”

What’s even more interesting is his response, when someone asked him what Satan looks like, he informed them that Satan looks like Nabtal bin al-Harith, a black man who had been ridiculing him. (ibn Ishaq, pg. 243) Speaking in a very literal sense, Muhammad was a white man who owned black slaves, who stated that Satan looks like a very specific black man. While many of his slaves did convert to Islam, it didn’t change their status as slaves, given that one of the previous Hadith makes clear that even an Imam can be a slave. I don’t think equality of any kind is an accurate term, under those circumstances.

The Pledge of Allegiance and Gettysburg

The assertion falls apart in light of current events. If I were to stand on a street corner and renounce Christianity (God forbid such blasphemy), the worst that people around me would do, would be to give me odd glances. Some might actually encourage me. However, if I were to stand on the streets and openly criticize Islam, I would be faced with tremendous criticism and social pressure to stop.

Case in point, one of my cousins once got upset with me for speaking out against Islam. He isn’t Muslim, he’s actually an atheist, but he felt that I wasn’t being fair to Islam. He even tried to use the violent portions of the Bible to create a moral equivalence, in order to shut me up. The problem is, I refuse to shut up. Needless to say, we haven’t spoken much as of late.

The point here is, according to certain elements in our society, the only opinions worth hearing are those that are in agreement with theirs. This creates a problem, when my mission is to sound an alarm, not play a game of “My Religion is Better”. Meanwhile, institutions of higher learning such as colleges and universities have suddenly gone from being bastions of free speech, to having free speech restricted to tiny “free speech zones”.

Why would that happen, especially in relation to Islam? My cousin isn’t the only atheist I’ve spoken to who went out of their way to defend Islam, which doesn’t make much sense, given that atheism opposes the idea of belief in a higher power. So, why are people who have renounced the existence of anything supernatural defending any religious system, let alone Islam?

What’s more confusing is what’s going on in our public schools. At the beginning of last school year, my housemate’s nephew came by to see us. He was beginning his freshman year in high school, and had brought along some of his work. Included in this work was his World History text and homework. Imagine our surprise when we take a look at the syllabus, and noted that one day was dedicated to Christianity and Judaism, while three weeks were dedicated to Islam.

After doing a bit of research, we found that this is showing up a lot in the Common Core Curriculum. Not only that, but children are being given full-on courses on Islam, including the recitation of the Shahadda, the Five Pillars of Islam, and even time spent dressing up as Muslims. This is alarming, given that no one could do that with Christianity or Judaism. It’s actually indoctrination, not instruction.

In his book, “The Blood of Lambs”, Kamal Saleem comments on this, “Many of the fedayeen, as well as fighters from other factions, fantasized about going there to wage what we called “cultural jihad”: converting infidels to Islam while slowly, incrementally changing the institutions of American society-its schools, its laws, the government itself.” Their intent was to come into this country, and slowly convert it into an Islamic Republic. Given what’s been going on in Europe, that doesn’t seem too far-fetched.

Straightaway, we’re seeing a very public drive to restrict the rights of certain people to free speech, religious freedom and the right to defend themselves, while extending extra special protection of those same rights to others. This isn’t just wrong, but it’s an extreme perversion of the Constitution.

It speaks to certain aspects of Islam, which no one ever seems to hear, and that is that Islamic Doctrine is supremacist in nature. For example, we have Qur’an 3:110, “You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah . If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient.” Then we have Qur’an 98:6-7, “Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures. Indeed, they who have believed and done righteous deeds – those are the best of creatures.”

Get that? Muslims are the best nation, the best people. All others are the worst of creatures. That means Islamic Doctrine regards infidels as lower than the most unclean of animals. That’s right, we’re lower than pigs.

Islamic Doctrine isn’t interested in equality. “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of Scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” -Omar Ahmad, founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

Going a little further, there’s what Kamal Saleem says on this matter, “In the name of Islam, I have befriended messengers of political enlightenment-Communists, Baathists, intellectual revolutionaries-from three countries. Then I killed them. Why do so many Americans think today’s Islamists, now teeming through their cities and actively plotting against them every day, will treat them any differently?” Did you get that? As a Muslim, Mr. Saleem pretended friendship with infidels (Qur’an 3:28), then killed them.

What’s my point in all of this? It’s simple. Which part of any of this is consistent with the ideas behind our Pledge of Allegiance and those expressed by Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address? The answer is, none of it. Yet, most will buy it hook, line and sinker, when Imams tell us to our faces that Islam is all about equality, mercy and peaceful coexistence.

Which part of any of this is consistent with our Constitution? None of it. Islam seeks only one goal, a worldwide Caliphate, united under Sharia law. In fact, there isn’t much of anything in Islam that is compatible with any portion of Western Civilization. It’s the polar opposite.


This is the alarm I’m raising. We have, within our midst, millions of people whose religious doctrine teaches that they’re meant to be superior to us, that they aren’t allowed to cease in their efforts to spread their religion until it is dominant and that they’re allowed to use any methods they deem necessary to accomplish that goal.

Whether or not they all hold to that doctrine is completely immaterial. It only took 19 men to kill 2,996 people on September 11, thereby changing our entire society. Imagine what hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women could do if they caught us similarly unawares.

Within our borders, there are training camps that impart more than just jihadist ideology, they also impart combat training, along with more specialized training in explosives and various other ways to kill human beings. They are slowly training up the army they’re going to use to take down our nation, and they don’t care who they kill to accomplish this task.

One of the stories that Kamal Saleem tells in his presentations is about a confrontation he once had with a Muslim man, “In another confrontation that August, this time on a sunny public sidewalk outside a Seattle mosque, a Muslim man squared off against me, nearly nose to nose: “How dare you speak against Allah and the Prophet?” he sputtered, eyes flashing. “We are converting twenty to twenty-five thousand Americans every year to Islam. We will seed your women, educate and convert your children, and have this nation! By the grace of Allah, we have nothing but time!”

If their doctrine teaches them that they are superior to us, that our lives are worthless and that they can lie to us in order to make themselves uppermost, why aren’t more people at least somewhat aware? Wake up, and smell the subversion!

“I have been made victorious with terror“, Muhammad ibn Abdulla, Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, Number 220