Categories
Child Abuse Commentary Emotional abuse History Reprints from others. Sexual Abuse

Sadly, Israel Must Finish Off Hamas, No Matter What.

Visits: 25

Hamas terrorists stand by vehicles as they hand over hostages who were abducted during the Oct. 7 attack on Israel to members of the International Committee of the Red Cross, as part of a hostages-prisoners swap deal between Hamas and Israel amid a temporary truce, in an unknown location in the Gaza Strip, Palestine, on Nov. 26, 2023. (Hamas Military Wing/Handout via Reuters)
By Roger L. Simon for EPOCH TIMES  11/27/2023

Yes, it’s sad that Israel must finish off Hamas, no matter what.

Innocent Gazans will die, particularly children.

But they have no choice.

Many of the adults, however, may not be so innocent. They’re people who elected to remain in Gaza under Hamas rule, despite the regime’s brutality equaling the worst in human history, while others sensibly fled.

The horrifying story of Hamas’s methods in overcoming the Palestinian Authority in Gaza in 2007, only two years after the territory was given freely to the Palestinians by Israel for their own rule, is a harrowing narrative worth reading. That they threw each other off 15-story roofs is but one harbinger of the Oct. 7 atrocities including rapes and the parading of victims, the murdering and abducting of babies, and so forth.

That most Arab nations don’t want these people for whom violence is a way of life within their borders is not surprising.

That LGBT folks have joined the pro-Hamas demonstrations without realizing what would happen to them under the terrorist’s rule is the darkest of comedy.

That some supposed conservatives see moral equivalency between Hamas and Israel would be laughable were it not so dangerous. Certainly, it’s a display of massive ignorance.

With the prisoner–hostage swap in progress, the efforts of the left and the United Nations, among others, to push Israel into a permanent cease-fire will undoubtedly redouble.

The U.N. is particularly hypocritical, or worse, in this regard. Little is more repellent than their longtime complicity, through their United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), with Hamas and other extremist organizations. They have literally ignored the use of human shields, the misuse of construction materials for terror tunnels, and similar abhorrent desecrations of human rights for well over a decade for the most malign and selfish of reasons—among them, if there were no more Palestinian refugees there would be no need for a UNRWA.

The U.N.’s other off-shoot, the World Health Organization (WHO) that we know from their obeisance to China during COVID-19, has been curiously silent about the use of hospitals for weapons storage, missile launching, those same tunnels, and even command and control headquarters by Hamas. (The director of Shifa Hospital, the largest medical complex in Gaza, is under interrogation by Israel at this moment about this.)

And then there’s the question of U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s statement about the Hamas attack.

These are the people who will be clamoring for a cease-fire, the very thing Hamas wants so they can regroup and attack again.

The terrorist organization makes no secret they wish to do this. It’s in the genocidal chant we hear everywhere from Los Angeles to London: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

When I say genocidal, I mean really genocidal. In Paris in the late eighties, just after Hamas was formed, I saw one of their early demonstrations at which they chanted “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas!” in English and French.

Clear enough?

The good news in all this is that Hamas is finally on the run. We can see this, as the Times of Israel has pointed out, from the nature and timing of the prisoner–hostage exchange. Normally, Hamas asks for a far greater imbalance with a huge number of real terrorists released, as in the case of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who was kidnapped by Hamas for five years.

Not this time. Hamas, in an unusual hurry for a pause, was willing to exchange for women and young prisoners, and fewer of them.

This is a sign that Hamas, which surprised the Israelis on Oct. 7, has been surprised themselves by the force of the Israeli response. They expected the usual three- or four-day counterattack when the Israelis, under global admonition to be “proportionate,” would relent and all would go back to the status quo ante.

Not this time again. Hamas leadership made a serious miscalculation, and Israel shows no sign of backing off. They have apparently had enough of carping from Western nations. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant made clear on the eve of the temporary truce that the Israel Defense Force will resume fighting “with intensity” for at least two months.

The way things have been going, that would seem sufficient to achieve the fate for Hamas that has already been achieved for its “semblable” ISIS.

It’s hard to know, after that, where things will go for the once-vaunted two-state solution. For some time, the Palestinians haven’t seemed really to want one. In 2007, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinian Authority 97 percent of what they said they wanted, and their leader Mahmoud Abbas walked away.

But you never know. Real power, properly applied, has the ability to change minds.

What we really should do is ask how it came to pass that Hamas got to accrue such an incredible and seemingly endless arsenal of weaponry, not to mention the funds for their leadership to enjoy the lifestyle of billionaires in luxury hotel suites in Turkey and Qatar while flying about in private jets?

The answer, alas, to some degree points to us.

Yes, most of those funds came via Iran, aka the “world’s greatest sponsor of terrorism,” with an assist from the aforementioned Qatar.

But where did and does Iran get its money to wreak havoc across the Middle East and potentially beyond?

To be blunt, I recommend asking Barack Obama and Joe Biden. They’re the ones who relaxed sanctions on Iran to the tune of billions and billions.

As for Israel, there’s no such thing as being “proportionate” when it comes to conquering evil.

 

Loading

96
Categories
Biden Cartel How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Public Service Announcement Reprints from others. Sexual Abuse Terrorism

As if we needed more proof that Palestinians collectively are evil.

Visits: 32

Shock Survey: 89% of Palestinians support terror groups known for suicide attacks, while 75% approve of October 7 massacre

Another poll displays the results of cradle-to-grave hate indoctrination.

Thanks to Jordan Schachtel of The Dossier.

A new opinion poll released by the Ramallah-based Arab World for Research & Development (AWRAD) revealed that the vast majority of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip support jihadist terrorism and that Palestinians overwhelmingly approve of the October 7 slaughter in southern Israel that was carried out by Hamas.

Here are some of the key highlights:

The survey shows that 75% of Palestinians approve of the October 7 terror attack against civilians in southern Israel, which is described by the PLO pollster as “attacks” that were “carried out in response to contemporary and historic oppression.”

Despite supporting the October 7 massacre, 90% now support a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

Some context to this:

In Arabic, a ceasefire is referred to as a hudna, and the term carries a very different connotation. A hudna is more of a strategic ceasefire that allows for a pause in fighting so that a competitive advantage can be built against an adversary.

In Western terms, a ceasefire seeks a more lasting end to hostilities.

A hudna is purposed with allowing for your forces to regroup so that they can continue the military campaign at a later date.

Now back to the survey…

Most Palestinians believe that “Palestine will win.” That prediction is not going so well. Hamas has not only not won, they’ve run away from the fight and decided to hide within the civilian populations, as the Israeli army has successfully split Gaza in two.

Now, here’s where the poll gets really ugly:

The Palestinians support the most ferocious jihadi terrorist groups while having nothing but contempt for the United States and even Arab countries that had previously attempted to assist them.

The Al Qassam Brigades, which is supported by 89% of respondents, is the militant arm of Hamas. They are known for carrying out suicide bombing missions and terrorist attacks on civilians.

Islamic Jihad (known in the West as Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or PIJ), the second most popular group with 84% approval, is a terrorist organization that operates in Gaza and Lebanon. Their operations also include suicide attacks and indiscriminate violence against civilians.

The Al Aqsa Brigades, which, like the two aforementioned groups, is best known for its suicide attacks, receives an 80% approval rating. They operate mostly in the West Bank.

Hamas comes in fourth place with 76%. In all likelihood, Hamas is taking a back seat to the above groups because they are not committed to enough carnage against Israelis and the greater Western world.

This poll is not an aberration but the norm. The Dossier has reported on previous surveys that once more reveal the unpopular truth that is the cradle-to-grave radicalization problem among people who live in the Palestinian Territories.

Palestinians transported a captured Israeli civilian (center) from Kibbutz Kfar Azza into the Gaza Strip on Saturday, Oct 7.

Some who commited Oct 7 attrocities were kids ‘no older than 10’!

With this survey, and many before it, we can certainly put to rest the idea —advanced by President Joe Biden and the institutional U.S. foreign policy gang — that “Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people.” They most certainly do, sadly.

Loading

135
Categories
Child Abuse Crime Emotional abuse History Immigration Reprints from others. Sexual Abuse Terrorism

The Quran’s Verses of Violence — Justifying Rape, Torture and Murder

Visits: 13

Like Christians, Muslims pick and choose which verses they like. Sometimes even picking only half a verse because the rest of it invalidates what they want it to say. (See a refutation of current propaganda: Response to Apologists) Thanks to  thereligionofpeace.com for both articles.

The Quran

Quran (2:244)“Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.” (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (2:216)Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time when Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (3:56)“As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”

Quran (3:151)“Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).

Quran (4:74)“Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.

Quran (4:76)“Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan)” The Arabic for the word “fight” is from qital, meaning physical combat.

Quran (4:89)“They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Quran (4:95)“Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward “ This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle).

Quran (4:101)“And when you (Muslims) travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten your Salat (prayer) if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you, verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies. Mere disbelief makes one an “open” enemy of Muslims.

Quran (4:104)“And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…” Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

Quran (5:33)“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”

Quran (8:12)“(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels… “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle, given that it both followed and preceded confrontations in which non-Muslims were killed by Muslims. The targets of violence are “those who disbelieve” – further defined in the next verse (13) as those who “defy and disobey Allah.” Nothing is said about self-defense. In fact, the verses in sura 8 were narrated shortly after a battle provoked by Muhammad, who had been trying to attack a lightly-armed caravan to steal goods belonging to other people.

Quran (8:15)“O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.”

Quran (8:39)“And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah” Some translations interpret “fitna” as “persecution”, but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during the pilgrimage. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there – but not as an armed group since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, as it was Muhammad’s intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until “religion is only for Allah”, meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that “Allah must have no rivals.”

Quran (8:57)“If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.”

Quran (8:67)“It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land…

Quran (8:59-60)“And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy.” As Ibn Kathir puts it in his tafsir on this passage, “Allah commands Muslims to prepare for war against disbelievers, as much as possible, according to affordability and availability.”

Quran (8:65)“O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight…”

Quran (9:5)“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence at the time of Muhammad was to convert to Islam: prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion’s Five Pillars. The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.

[Note: The verse says to fight unbelievers “wherever you find them“. Even if the context is a time of battle (which it was not) the reading appears to sanction attacks against those “unbelievers” who are not on the battlefield. In 2016, the Islamic State referred to this verse in urging the faithful to commit terror attacks: Allah did not only command the ‘fighting’ of disbelievers, as if to say He only wants us to conduct frontline operations against them. Rather, He has also ordered that they be slain wherever they may be – on or off the battlefield. (source)]

Quran (9:14)“Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.” Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even “heals” the hearts of Muslims.

Quran (9:20)“Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah’s way are of much greater worth in Allah’s sight. These are they who are triumphant.” The Arabic word interpreted as “striving” in this verse is the same root as “Jihad”. The context is obviously holy war.

Quran (9:29)“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has instructed them to make Islam “superior over all religions.” This chapter was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Quran (9:30)“And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”

Quran (9:38-39)“O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.” This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell. The verse also links physical fighting to the “cause of Allah” (or “way of Allah”).

Quran (9:41)“Go forth, light or heavy (some translations read “armed”) and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.” See also the verse that follows (9:42) – “If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them” This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and – in this case – on Christian soil, according to the historians).

Quran (9:73)“O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It explains why today’s devout Muslims generally have little regard for those outside the faith. The inclusion of “hypocrites” (non-practicing) within the verse also contradicts the apologist’s defense that the targets of hate and hostility are wartime foes since there was never an opposing army made up of non-religious Muslims in Muhammad’s time. (See also Games Muslims Play: Terrorists Can’t Be Muslim Because They Kill Muslims for the role this verse plays in Islam’s perpetual internal conflicts).

Quran (9:88)“But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.”

Quran (9:111)“Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” How does the Quran define a true believer?

Quran (9:123)“O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”

Quran (17:16)“And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.” Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is “utter destruction.” (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).

Quran (18:65-81) – This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with “special knowledge” who does things which don’t seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (v.74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would “grieve” his parents by “disobedience and ingratitude.” He was killed so that Allah could provide them a ‘better’ son. [Note: This parable along with verse 58:22 is a major reason that honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.12).]

Expanding Islam

Quran (21:44)“…See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?”

Quran (25:52)“Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness with it.” – The root for Jihad is used twice in this verse – although it may not have been referring to Holy War when narrated, since it was prior to the hijra at Mecca. The “it” at the end is thought to mean the Quran. Thus the verse may have originally meant a non-violent resistance to the ‘unbelievers.’ Obviously, this changed with the hijra. ‘Jihad’ after this is almost exclusively within a violent context. The enemy is always defined as people, rather than ideas.

Quran (33:60-62)“If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for adultery, etc.), and those who spread false news among the people in Al-Madinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you overpower them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbors but a little while Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter.” This passage sanctions slaughter (rendered as “merciless” and “horrible murder” in other translations) against three groups: hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to “fight in the way of Allah” (3:167) and hence don’t act as Muslims should), those with “diseased hearts” (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and “alarmists” or “agitators – those who speak out against Islam. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out, which is what today’s terrorists do.

Quran (47:3-4)“Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord… So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)… If it had been Allah’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.” Holy war is to be pursued against those who reject Allah. The unbelievers are to be killed and wounded. Survivors are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn’t do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. (See also: 47:4 for more context)

Quran (47:35)“Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: “have the upper hand”) for Allah is with you,”

Quran (48:17)“There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom.” Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means ‘spiritual struggle.’ If so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.

Quran (48:29)“Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves” Islam is not about treating everyone equally. This verse tells Muslims that two very distinct standards are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for ‘hard’ or ‘ruthless’ in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as ‘painful’ or severe’ to describe Hell in over 25 other verses including 65:10, 40:46 and 50:26..

Quran (61:4)“Surely Allah loves those who fight in His cause” Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to “rows” or “battle array,” meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9), which defines the “cause”: “He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.” (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.

Quran (61:10-12)“O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of’Adn- Eternity [‘Adn(Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.” This verse refers to physical battle waged to make Islam victorious over other religions (see verse 9). It uses the Arabic root for the word Jihad.Quran (66:9)“O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.” The root word of “Jihad” is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include “hypocrites” – those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.

Quran (2:191-193)“And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to “fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you” leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah’s rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is disingenuous – the actual Arabic words for persecution (idtihad) – and oppression are not used instead of fitna. Fitna can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. A strict translation is ‘sedition,’ meaning rebellion against authority (the authority being Allah). This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned “until religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. [Original editor’s note: these notes have been modified slightly after a critic misinterpreted our language. Verse 193 plainly says that ‘fighting’ is sanctioned even if the fitna ‘ceases’. This is about religious order, not real persecution.]


There you have it. The “logic” of terrorist attacks and why other Muslims remain quiet — because they would be killed, too. That is a valid fear, as is amply demonstrated in the internecine warfare of Muslim factions and the horrendous practice of “Honor” killing. — TPR

Loading

121
Categories
Child Abuse Crime Drugs Emotional abuse Human Traficking Sexual Abuse The Courts

More Arkancide? Epstein Victim Who Testified Against Ghislaine Maxwell Has Died

Visits: 29

Epstein Victim Found Dead after Testifying against Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell.

No obituary or funeral service after she died…

From multiple sources.

The world lost a brave woman recently, Carolyn Andriano, who had been a crucial witness in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, the accomplice of notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Andriano’s sudden death, ruled as an accidental overdose, has raised eyebrows and stirred suspicions due to its timing and the circumstances surrounding it.

Carolyn Andriano, a victim of sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein whose testimony was crucial to putting away his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, has died.

Her death went unreported in the media until now.

There was no obituary or funeral service after she died earlier this year, and police in West Palm Beach, Florida, opened an investigation into her death. After The Daily Beast reached out for comment, police spokesman Mike Jachles told us that the investigation was concluding and that Carolyn died of an accidental overdose.

The 36-year-old mother-of-five had planned to start a new chapter in North Carolina, at a new house with a fireplace and half-acre lot with a chicken coop. Carolyn and her husband, John Pitts, had purchased the property just weeks before she was found unresponsive in a West Palm Beach hotel room on May 23.

Before her death, “she was ecstatic,” Carolyn’s mother, Dorothy Groenert, told The Daily Beast. “She was all set up for a whole new lifestyle.”

Groenert says Carolyn’s death was a shock because she was working on building a new life and recently texted her about being free of drugs and alcohol.

The way Groenert sees it, some things about her daughter’s overdose don’t make sense, and she wants cops to investigate further.

Jachles, however, said that Carolyn’s case would officially be closed this week. Officers on the scene took a statement from Pitts, who told them that Carolyn had been using drugs, and Carolyn’s brother, who rushed to the hotel after Pitts texted Groenert that Carolyn had died. Pitts tried to administer CPR and “was given directions over the phone with 911,” Jachles said.

“It shouldn’t be closed,” Groenert said of the police investigation. “I begged them, I sent them numerous messages. I’ve asked for them to make meetings, contact me, and to no avail.”

Now Groenert is in a legal battle with Pitts over Carolyn’s will, which was filed in 2010 before she married him and which left her estate to her mother and two oldest children. Because the will hadn’t been updated, Pitts and his three kids with Carolyn were left out of her estate. Carolyn had received millions from Epstein-related settlements, though probate court documents indicate she had $183,000 in a bank account. The filings also listed unknown assets as the JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank class action settlements—which, as The Daily Beast reported, amount to $290 million and $75 million, respectively, and will result in big payouts to victims.

Since Carolyn’s death, he’s posted tributes to her on Facebook and mourned his family’s loss.

“You showed me what love really is and I will never forget how big your heart is,” Pitts wrote in June, adding, “I know our souls will always be attached together.”

“I will do right by you because I know what u really wanted in life to give our kids the life we never had… I miss u so much no words can say just know I will give our kids the best life that I can…”

While Pitts could not be reached, his sister Serena told The Daily Beast that Groenert’s and her family’s suggestion that Carolyn’s death was suspicious is “ridiculous.”

“Right now our family is grieving the loss of Carolyn and prioritizing the care of her children. At this time we kindly appreciate space and privacy,” she added in a text.

The Daily Beast has submitted requests for information to both the medical examiner and police department. While a cause or manner of death hasn’t been released, a toxicology report indicates Carolyn had methadone, fentanyl, and alprazolam (the generic name for Xanax) in her system when she died.

Lewis Nelson, professor and chair of the Rutgers New Jersey Medical School’s Department of Emergency Medicine and Director of the Division of Medical Toxicology, said alprazolam and fentanyl can be a dangerous combination, as both drugs suppress breathing.

“Her fentanyl use was very recent,” said Nelson, who is not involved in Carolyn’s case but independently reviewed her toxicology report. “My postulation is she is on methadone, takes a high dose, she took fentanyl, and she died quickly.” The low levels of a metabolite of fentanyl, Nelson added, suggest that Carolyn died before her body had time to metabolize the drug. Bloodwork, however, doesn’t usually paint a picture of how often someone uses a substance.

Carolyn was one of four victims to testify at the Maxwell trial in December 2021, telling the jury that the British socialite had groped her and routinely scheduled her “massages” with Epstein, who molested her up to three times until she was “too old” for him at age 18.

At the start, a Manhattan federal prosecutor asked Carolyn if she’d ever been addicted to drugs, and she replied, “Pain pills and cocaine.” Carolyn also testified about her home life when she was 14 and had first visited Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion in 2001. “I was allowed to do whatever I wanted,” she said, adding, “Because my mom was an alcoholic and a drug addict.” (Asked about Carolyn’s testimony, Groenert denied this. “No, I was working. I was working to pay for my children. I didn’t get any supplements. I had to work,” she said. “That’s inaccurate.”)

Carolyn, who said she dropped out in seventh grade and never returned to school, later testified that she became addicted to drugs while visiting Epstein’s lair: “Marijuana, cocaine, alcohol, anything that could block out for me to go to the appointment.”

She had confided in Maxwell and Epstein about her history of being sexually abused as a young child (by a relative at age 4) and of her family’s struggles with addiction. This emboldened the sick high-society couple to groom her and even attempt to bring her to Epstein’s U.S. Virgin Islands compound. “I told him I was only 15 and I couldn’t leave,” Carolyn said of Epstein.

The prosecutor also asked Carolyn about her medications, and she answered that she took methadone, an antidepressant, Xanax, and a drug for schizophrenia because “I am scared that my kids are going to get kidnapped.”

When Maxwell’s lawyer cross-examined Carolyn, he noted the Epstein victim compensation fund awarded her $3.25 million but had subtracted $446,000 because she’d received that amount in 2009 from a lawsuit against Epstein and his assistant Sarah Kellen.

“Yes, but no money will ever fix what’s happened to me,” Carolyn responded.

Carolyn testified using only her first name but came forward to the Daily Mail after Maxwell’s conviction. During this interview, she spoke of Pitts’ support.

“I had rosary beads in my hands for the entire time and my husband was in the courtroom and every time I felt like I was getting weak, he would give me a little thumbs up or I’d clench the beads,” Carolyn told the tabloid. “I was determined to have the strength to have this woman put away for what she did to me and other young women.”

“Sure, they accused me of lying, but I knew that was coming and I stood up to it because I was telling the God’s honest truth.”

At another point in the interview, Carolyn suggested that Virginia Giuffre, a victim who allegedly recruited her into Epstein’s sex ring, deserved to face similar consequences as Maxwell because, she claimed, Giuffre “trafficked me into a world of spiraling downward slopes and it has taken my husband John 12 long years to get me to love myself again.”

“I’m very happy being a wife and a mother and I want to show people how the tragedies in my life did not stop me,” she added. “I’m overcoming them. I’m not going to let Maxwell and Epstein ruin my life anymore. I’m grateful every day when I wake up.”

Questions:  Why was there no funeral and no obituary? Why is her sister-in-law so sure there is nothing suspicious about this death?

These two facts make it VERY suspicious to me. — TPR

Loading

151
Categories
Child Abuse Emotional abuse How sick is this? Politics Sexual Abuse

Beginning of Armegeddon? Hamas strikes trying to trigger world war

Visits: 54

Distressing videos warning!

Enough said.
Rockets started at 6:30 AM, then came ground attacks

I had been holding off on doing an article about the Brutal ANIMALS on two legs known as Hamas. But this is too much. A woman killed, stripped naked, and paraded around Gaza. Many more women and children killed or taken hostage…

Liberal idiots are complaining about Gaza civilians dying, but not a word about the Israeli, American, and German civilians killed by Hamas.

video
video
video

Time to put these animals down. PERMANENTLY.

 

Loading

171
Categories
Biden Cartel Child Abuse Emotional abuse Government Overreach How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Politics Sexual Abuse WOKE

RED ALERT! HHS proposes to remove minors from non “GENDER AFFIRMING” foster homes.

Visits: 24

Yes, you read that right: Biden Admin Proposal Would ‘Transfer’ Kids Out Of Foster Homes That Don’t Affirm Their ‘Gender Identity.’

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a proposed rule Wednesday that would require states to “transfer” foster children from families who do not support their “gender identity,” a copy of the rule showed.

Under the proposed rule, children in the foster care system will only be placed with families who the HHS classifies as a “safe and appropriate placement,” meaning families must use a child’s “identified pronouns” and “chosen name,” the rule said. “Safe” families will undergo extensive training to “provide” for the child’s “needs,” and the state will transfer fostered children away from families who do not “support” their “self-identified gender identity and expression,” upon completion of an investigation.

“In certain cases, we anticipate that a report from a LGBTQI+ youth that they feel their placement is not safe or appropriate should merit a response of great urgency from the agency,” HHS wrote in the proposed rule. “For example, given the extensive evidence that LGBTQI+ youth who face bullying, discrimination, or harassment related to their sexual orientation or gender identity are at significantly increased risk of violence or self-harm, we anticipate that agencies should respond with urgency when a LGBTQI+ child raises concerns that a placement that is not safe and appropriate.”

https://x.com/SecBecerra/status/1707098246139531666?s=20

Evil made to sound innocent.

Families can apply for a religious exception, but the agency declares it has a “compelling government interest” that outweighs any “religious restrictions.”

Child abuse in its most insidious form,

The rule also clarifies that foster parents will be guilty of “neglect” or “abuse” if they “retaliate” against a child for their “gender identity,” including if they restrict the child’s access to “age-appropriate materials” such as “health care supportive of their sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.” 

Families will be required to help children go through sex-change surgeries or allow them to take puberty blockers, including children younger than 14.

President Joe Biden requested in June that the agency “take action” to “safeguard LGBTQI+ youth from dangerous practices,”

Families who have religious objections to changing genders or engaging in same-sex relationships will not be allowed to foster children who “identify” as “LGBTQIA,” because they will not fit under the definition of a “safe placement,” the rule clarifies. HHS says families can apply for a religious exception, but claimed that the agency has “compelling government interest” that outweighs any “religious restrictions.”

HHS created the rule after President Joe Biden requested in June that the agency “take action” to “safeguard LGBTQI+ youth from dangerous practices,” a White House press release said. Biden praised the HHS rule in a Wednesday press release and said the rule would give children “the services they need to thrive.”

HHS plans to publish the proposed rule on Thursday and will allow individuals to comment on the potential rule for the next 60 days.

Rules by the unelected are not laws.

First reported on The Daily Caller.

Loading

152
Categories
Biden Cartel Child Abuse Emotional abuse Leftist Virtue(!) Politics Sexual Abuse

Biden’s DOJ Child Sex Trafficking Office Updates Website – Page Now Half the Size, Critical Info Gone

Visits: 28

The Biden administration’s Department of Justice web page on the dangers of child sex trafficking is suddenly missing some very crucial text that raises further questions as to the degree the department has been politicized.

In fact, in recent months, most of the original text on what the public should look for has been deleted — presumably in order to protect an embattled pro-LGBT White House and its failed border policies.

According to an archive of the page, up until recently, the DOJ warned off international sex trafficking rings that use the border to exploit children.

A section on “International Sex Trafficking of Minors” for years read as follows:

“One form of sex trafficking involves the cross-border transportation of children. In these situations, traffickers recruit and transfer children across international borders in order to sexually exploit them in another country.

“The traffickers can be individuals working alone, organized crime groups, enterprises, or networks of criminals working together to traffic children into prostitution across country lines.”

The DOJ reported that once missing and exploited children enter the country illegally, they often are never found and are afraid to come forward.

Other crucial excerpts on the international slave trade are also missing.

One obvious explanation for why this information is suddenly gone is that President Joe Biden and his administration have watched over an open border for the last two-and-a-half years.

Why else would anyone in federal law enforcement in the corrupt federal government feel it is necessary to remove such important information?

But there are also excerpts missing that could be interpreted as pointing toward the LGBT community.

For example, in its previous form, the DOJ warned of predators whose motives might be to take advantage of young people whose backgrounds could match those of confused kids in distress.

One of those excerpts once read:

“Offenders of this crime who are commonly referred to as traffickers, or pimps, target vulnerable children and gain control over them using a variety of manipulative methods. Victims frequently fall prey to traffickers who lure them in with an offer of food, clothes, attention, friendship, love, and a seemingly safe place to sleep.”

Another stated bluntly:

“It is common for traffickers to isolate victims by moving them far away from friends and family, altering their physical appearances, or continuously moving them to new locations. Victims are heavily conditioned to remain loyal to the trafficker and to distrust law enforcement.”

Organizations that cater to children who are confused about sexuality and gender often report they feel ostracized and end up homeless.

For example, the LGBT youth group The Trevor Project states that 28 percent of young people in its community have been homeless.

It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that such a situation would set some of these kids up to be taken advantage of.

We know with the modern left’s extreme views on gender, kids are being urged to undergo life-altering surgeries. Who knows where some of them end up?

That fact might explain why the DOJ’s warning that predators who are known for “altering” the physical appearance of their victims is now gone.

More information about the trafficking of human beings is always better than less — especially in regard to children.

But for some reason that has not been addressed publicly, the DOJ cut out this very important information — whittling it down from more than 1,300 words to only 400.

The department also removed the following 2011 quote from then-Deputy Attorney General James Cole:

“Some of our most vulnerable children also face the threat of being victimized by commercial sexual exploitation. Runaways, throwaways, sexual assault victims, and neglected children can be recruited into a violent life of forced prostitution.”

Given the politicized nature of federal law enforcement under the Biden administration, we can only assume the DOJ removed information about victims who are inconvenient and that it was done for political reasons.

See the updated page here.

The White House is truly shameless.

Loading

80
Categories
Corruption Leftist Virtue(!) Reprints from others. Sexual Abuse WOKE

Newsom takes in Disneyland’s first Pride Nite — gets rightfully hammered for it

Visits: 20

Newsom takes in Disneyland’s first Pride Nite and gets hammered for it © Provided by Washington Examiner.

Story by Luke Gentile for The Washington Examiner

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) took in Disneyland’s After Dark: Pride Nite Tuesday and shared his experience with followers across social media.

“Great to be at Disneyland’s first ever Pride Night,” Newsom, a suspected 2024 Democratic hopeful, tweeted.

Newsom posted a clip of himself taking in the fireworks over the park’s iconic Sleeping Beauty Castle with a rainbow cascading in the background.

The California park is hosting what is being touted as its official LGBT “Pride Nite” festivities from June 13 to June 15, Disney posted to social media.

This will be its first after-hours event in celebration of pride, according to the park.

“Disneyland Park will host the first ever Disneyland After Dark: Pride Nite during a separately ticketed evening event,” a statement from Disney announcing the event read. “Guests can enjoy special after-hours park access to shorter attraction wait times, special entertainment, Character experiences, photo opportunities and much more!”

From 9:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m., visitors will be able to partake in dance parties with their favorite Disney characters in “special attire” amid “pride-themed backdrops,” according to park officials.

Following his post, Newsom was hammered with tweets criticizing his areas of focus as governor.

Kevin Dalton @TheKevinDalton
Gavin Newsom: you won’t see me discussing any of the mass shootings in California, you won’t see me at the funerals of any police officers murdered by violent felons that should be behind bars, you won’t see me doing anything effective to prevent homelessness.

Skylarking @EmpressLibra25 replied:

You WILL find him at a restaurant during a lockdown…without a mask.
😷
Kenrik March @KenrikMarch
How about you do something for the other 90% of your state for a change?
Sam Dawson @SamsGarageSale
Move in. You won’t be missed.

This event certainly is no “E-ticket!”

Even the MCU and Star Wars franchises won’t save Disney at this rate.
Yeah, given the known quantity of mentally ill gender-confused loons in Cali, they just might make up 10% of the state’s population. But what about the other 90%?

Loading

69
Categories
Emotional abuse Leftist Virtue(!) Sexual Abuse

You go Girl! JKR Infuriates Transgender Community with Advice About Looking in the Mirror

Visits: 51

SEX IS REAL

Men are men, and Women are women, period.

Few things in modern media have been more dizzying than watching once-beloved “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling become public enemy No. 1 in some people’s eyes because of her stringent belief that men are men and women are women.

Rowling became a highly public target of abuse from the far left, and LGBT activists in particular, in 2019, when she criticized the firing of a researcher who, among other things, said, “it is impossible to change sex.”

“Dress however you please,” she tweeted at the time. “Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?”

The author soon found herself on the front lines of the battle over transgender rights.

Rowling, a domestic violence survivor, explained in a 2020 blog post that she feared “the new trans activism” was “offering cover to predators.”

“When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman … then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside,” she wrote.

(Note: I (and others) have been saying for years the same thing — and backed it up with news stories that proved that it had already happened. — TPR)

In 2021, the author tweeted that “hundreds of trans activists have threatened to beat, rape, assassinate and bomb me.”

But Rowling hasn’t backed down.

Poll on The Western Journal, shot at 5 pm EST 1/27/23

On Wednesday, she called out the “misogyny” of men trying to dictate what women should tolerate.

It was a powerful condemnation of transgender extremism.

Why is she, a woman, being attacked for simply stating men can’t have periods, get pregnant, or menstruate? Why do men think they have the right to silence her as she speaks out against the invasion of spaces for women and girls by members of the opposite sex?

Rowling’s resistance to the far left’s transgender movement has made her persona non-grata in certain circles.

For example, the forthcoming “Harry Potter” video game “Hogwarts Legacy” has come under fire for being associated with Rowling despite her complete lack of involvement aside from creating the source material.

Although she is a liberal feminist, angry “Harry Potter” fans lament on social media that she has become some sort of far-right figure.

More anger followed her tweet Wednesday.

 

Rowling became a household name with the popularity of the “Harry Potter” children’s book series, the first of which was released in the U.S. in September 1998.

While the “Potter” books ended in 2007, their popularity has sprung into countless media offshoots, including movies, video games, and plays.

(Rowling has written other books under her own name and the pseudonym Robert Galbraith.)


What say you?

Loading

198
Categories
Child Abuse Emotional abuse Leftist Virtue(!) Privacy Reprints from others. Sexual Abuse

A Plan to Transform America — How Homosexuality Has Been Promoted As Acceptable

Visits: 153

Introduction by The Phoenix Rises:

First off, this is not a hit piece on individual gays or lesbians. They have both good and bad people in their group, just like everybody else. Second, what knowledgeably consenting adults do behind closed doors is nobody else’s business. Third, being in a close relationship with someone of the same gender need not have anything to do with sexual activities. One obvious example: Frodo Baggins and Samwise Gangee. Another example: the Lone Ranger and Tonto.

That said, predators and groomers (of any sexual preference) deserve any backlash and/or punishment they receive for their unjust and immoral behavior in their treatment of others. Especially those too young to give informed consent.

Finally, what is objectionable is putting on a public show and demanding that everyone else should kowtow to your viewpoint. Again, this applies to ANY group, no matter what they profess to. This goes for BLM/Antifa, the KKK and other racist groups, ISIS, other rabid ‘religious’ groups, and so on.

While this article comes mainly from a Christian denomination’s article on the subject,  it almost bends over backward to counter any accusations of bigotry or bias. It is about morals. Morality is a separate issue from religious dogma, as many atheists will attest to.

__________________________________________________________

Originally by Charles Melear in Beyond Today – a United Church of God publication.

The startling shift in American attitudes toward gays and same-sex marriage is not the result of chance or random events. More than a quarter century ago, gay strategists laid out a plan to transform the nation—with astounding success.

Do you consider yourself an independent thinker? What is the source of your conclusions regarding right or wrong? How do you determine your opinions regarding the news and political events?

Professional marketers develop strategies to influence and persuade potential customers to purchase their products. Some are very successful, as you can probably hum or sing dozens of pithy jingles or recognize the logos of many companies.

But you should also realize that people are affecting our culture who you’ve probably never heard of. How about Dan Wieden, co-founder of the advertising agency Wieden+Kennedy? Have you ever repeated the Nike slogan “Just do it”? Wieden developed that in 1988.

How  abouter used the expression, “Where’s the beef?” Wendy’s hamburger chain profited from that slogan’s creator, Cliff Freeman, around 1984. You’ve probably never heard of him either.

You’ve also likely never heard of Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. Nevertheless, these men have directly affected your life and American culture—strategically, gradually, subtly and definitely intentionally.

In the November 1987 edition of Guide, a magazine for homosexuals, the two men authored an article titled “The Overhauling of Straight America.” There Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry, and Madsen, a public relations consultant, laid out a blueprint to fundamentally change Americans’ attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuality. In 1989 they expanded that blueprint into a 398-page book titled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s.

The “bible” of the homosexual agenda

Their goal was to make homosexuality acceptable and to forge negative opinions of any who disagree. The article began by stating: “The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference . . . She likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.” (We quote from the Guide article rather than the book, which at times is quite vulgar and graphic. Interested readers can find the article in whole or in part online.) Full text for THE OVERHAULING OF STRAIGHT AMERICA

One person described “The Overhauling of Straight America” as the “bible” of the homosexual agenda. It is quite a contrast to the Bible of Christianity.

The authors, relating to the culture of the late 1980s, were realistic. They continued: At least in the beginning we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full ‘appreciation’ or ‘understanding’ of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if you can only get them to think that is just another thing . . . , then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.

To understand how startlingly successful their blueprint proved to be, consider this: In 1987, the year that article was published, Gallup polls showed that only 33 percent of those polled thought that same-sex relations between consenting adults should be legal, while 55 percent thought such action should be outlawed (numbers don’t total 100 percent because some offered no opinion). By 2015, the numbers were more than reversed—68 percent believed such sexual relations should be legal and only 28 percent were opposed.

Same-sex marriage was so off the radar that it wasn’t even asked about in Gallup polls until 1996, when only 27 percent approved and 68 percent were opposed. Today, Gallup polls show that 58 percent approve and 40 percent disapprove—another startling turnaround in attitudes.

Gallup polls in 1989 showed that only 19 percent of Americans believed people were born homosexual, with 48 percent believing it was due to environmental factors such as upbringing. By 2015 those numbers had dramatically shifted to 51 percent believing homosexuals were born that way and only 30 percent attributing it to other factors. (This is in spite of the fact that extensive genetic research and many studies of identical twins where only one was homosexual have disproven genetic determinism.)

Well-researched surveys (as opposed to some with markedly skewed samples and/or methodology) have consistently placed the homosexual population of America at around 2 to 3 percent—yet the influence of homosexuals on American culture is vastly out of proportion with their actual numbers. How did this come to be?

For those who remember what American culture was like in 1987 when the blueprint was first published, you can easily evaluate whether the six strategies they outlined have been successful. For those too young to remember the late 80s, consider how pervasive these things are in the culture you experience today.

What was their blueprint for overhauling American attitudes? Following are the six steps they advocated a quarter-century ago.

Step 1: “Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.”

Authors Kirk and Madsen say that almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it . . . The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way . . . Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality.

Consider this quote: And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed . . . First let the camel get his nose inside the tent—only later his unsightly derriere!

When we are exposed to anything repeatedly, it becomes routine and normal. What initially might shock someone eventually can become acceptable. And acceptability is the ultimate goal. What at one time was highly offensive to the vast majority of Americans is now no big deal. They’ve been lulled into complacency.

Where we talk is important, wrote Kirk and Madsen. . . . The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed . . .

 So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream.

So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream. Bit by bit over the past ten years, gay characters and gay themes have been introduced into TV programs and films . . . On the whole the impact has been encouraging.

Have you noticed the number of homosexual characters appearing in TV programs and how they are overwhelmingly depicted positively? From a rarity on TV in the 1980s, such characters are now almost inescapable. A USA Today article last year reported 32 regularly appearing bisexual or homosexual characters in primetime network scripted series for the 2014-15 television season, with another 64 appearing in cable TV shows (Bill Keveney, “Yes, You Really Are Seeing More LGBT Characters on TV,” Oct. 1, 2014). 

If a child grows up hearing about the gay lifestyle and seeing it portrayed positively his entire life, won’t that make it seem normal?

Kirk and Madsen also described a strategy by which the homosexual movement could counter and largely nullify opposition from America’s churches. They wrote: When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency.

This they have certainly accomplished—enlisting liberal scholars to explain away biblical teachings about homosexual practices, reinterpreting their plain meaning. 

They continued:Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology.

Again, their strategy has succeeded remarkably well. Those who hold to biblical teachings about homosexuality and marriage are condemned as bigots, homophobes and backward thinkers who are a threat to progress.

Some who have stood up have been fined, ordered to attend pro-homosexual “sensitivity training,” lost jobs or had their businesses sued out of existence by government agents and agencies that support the homosexual agenda.

The next step in their stated strategy similarly turns truth on its head.

Step 2: “Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.”

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection,” Kirk and Madsen wrote. Of course this does not address the issue of whether the gay lifestyle is right or wrong. It is an attempt to emotionally manipulate others with the motive of getting them to accept values they otherwise wouldn’t agree with.

If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our ‘gay pride’ publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image, they wrote.

. . . This means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured.

They then add this caution for those who would want to push the gay agenda too far: It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA [the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which as its name suggests promotes adult-child homosexual sex] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims . . .

Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims . . . To this end, the persons featured in the public campaign should be decent and upright, appealing and admirable by straight standards . . . they should be indistinguishable from the straights we would like to reach.

It should be obvious that we are beyond this strategy today. The gay community should no longer be considered victims in the United States—and in reality those in the gay movement have become aggressive challengers of traditional values and biblical beliefs on many fronts.

This brings us to the next step in their strategic blueprint.

Step 3: “Give protectors a just cause.”

A media campaign that casts gays as society’s victims and encourages straights to be their protectors must make it easier for those to respond to assert and explain their new protectiveness. Few straight women, and even fewer straight men, will want to defend homosexuality boldly as such . . . Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, [but] should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme.

The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws—these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.

Again, this tactic is antiquated now. Law and due process should’ve always protected all citizens equally. The real issue is whether there is a true Creator God who authored the Bible and if that God has the right to determine right and wrong and what is best for those He’s created.

Step 4: “Make gays look good.”

n order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society.

This approach can be considered mission accomplished. Kirk and Madsen also pointed out the benefits of “the celebrity endorsement.” It doesn’t matter whether the celebrity is straight or gay, the important thing is the endorsement of homosexuality as normal.

Of course, most celebrities are part of the entertainment world, where values are overwhelmingly liberal and opposed to biblical standards. Is it any wonder that so many celebrities have “come out of the closet” in recent years or proclaimed their support for gays? 

Step 5: “Make the victimizers look bad.”

Kirk and Madsen continued: At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights . . . it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified . . . Our goal here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types. (emphasis added throughout).

The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America, Kirk and Madsen wrote. To this end, they then suggested that those who oppose the homosexual agenda be linked with images such as the Ku Klux Klan, “bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred,” thugs and convicts, and Nazi concentration camps.

This strategy—aided and abetted by sympathetic news media and government agencies—has led to us entering a stage of aggressive attacks by some in the gay community against those who sincerely believe that homosexual behavior violates the laws, instructions and principles of God. Bible-believing Christians are indeed “vilified” and branded as bigots and homophobes.

Do rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religious beliefs and freedom of association work both ways? We’re seeing a time in which constitutionally guaranteed citizens’ rights are being stripped away to accommodate new supposed rights invented by various court rulings and government policy.

Step 6: “Solicit funds: The buck stops here.”

Any massive campaign of this kind would require unprecedented expenditures for months or even years—an unprecedented fundraising drive, they acknowledged.

Yet at the same time, they made a statement showing that gays really aren’t the oppressed, victimized group Kirk and Madsen advocate they be portrayed as: Because those gays not supporting families usually have more discretionary income than average, they could afford to contribute much more.

If you’ve ever wondered why so many American businesses cater to a gay clientele, donate money to support homosexual causes and celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, it’s because they recognize this simple fact: Homosexual couples, who typically don’t have children, have substantially more discretionary income than families who do.

The impact of this is also being felt in the political arena, where wealthy gays help bankroll campaigns for sympathetic candidates who will advance their interests and fund ads attacking those who stand for traditional and biblical values.

Kirk and Madsen go on to praise the fact that homosexuals have been able to infiltrate American news media to advance the cause of issues important to them. Because most straightforward appeals are impossible, the National Gay Task Force has had to cultivate quiet backroom liaisons with broadcast companies and newsrooms in order to make sure that issues important to the gay community receive some coverage.

In the 26 years since they wrote that, most U.S. media has tilted even more to the left, so proponents of the homosexual agenda are usually assured of favorable coverage and free publicity for their cause. 

What is the right Christian response?

Those who believe the Bible and care about the future of America should be aware that today’s issues regarding the gay lifestyle have been orchestrated by activists for more than 25 years. This was no accident or chance course of events.

A gay person should not be afraid of a Christian as some hate-monger. True followers of Jesus Christ are to always show love toward others (Matthew 5:44), recognizing that all have sinned and need God’s mercy and forgiveness (Romans 3:23). But this does not mean excusing and accepting sin.

Recall that Jesus didn’t condemn a woman who was caught in adultery and brought before Him (John 8:2-11). But He didn’t say that what she was doing was acceptable either. He told her to “go and sin no more” (John 8:11). Moreover, He had to die to pay the penalty of her sin—and ours.

We should call sin what it is. And the Bible clearly labels homosexual activity a sin (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Of course, we must have compassion for those who don’t understand—and for those who do who struggle with this sin.

In communicating with others, Christians should be wise enough not to be trapped by phrases mislabeling the Christian approach. “Are you anti-gay?” can be a very misleading question. Understanding the definitions of someone you are having a discussion with is important. Acceptance, tolerance and inclusivity can be controversial and emotionally charged words.

Our culture has accepted two huge lies

Speaking on the issue of tolerance, mega-church pastor and bestselling author Rick Warren observed that our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do.

Both notions are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate. Disapproval is not hate. Disapproval of what is wrong and harmful is a part of godly love.

Don’t let your life be controlled by the clever marketing of evil as good and good as evil.

__________________________________________________________

Afterword by TPR:

In the years since this was first posted (almost seven years to the day), we can see how other groups have adopted the same strategies to foist their <s>opinions</s> demands on the rest of the population. Those that doesn’t agree with them are smeared as various ‘-phobes’ and ‘-ists’ because they dare to disapprove of the group’s agenda.

As the article correctly points out, the far-leftists (true liberals are just as concerned about individual’s right to live their own lives as are conservatives) whole-heartedly support this agenda as one more tool to take over the freedoms of others. They talk about promoting a “live and let live” attitude — but only if that phrase is defined as “let me do whatever the Hell I want, no matter who else gets hurt in the process!”

Again, this isn’t about religious dogma, it’s about what as morally just.

 

Loading

439
Verified by MonsterInsights