Say NO!!!

[theicemanmpls]

It varies from source to source most agree on the radical 100,000,000 ball park number as they each have different figures on just what the world total of Muslims are out there, but here have fun reading....

The “Tiny Percentage” of Radical Islamists ? Pursuing Holiness
Documentary Exposes Radical Muslim Rhetoric
Link Removed
Link Removed

If you would like to see them there are a heap more out there...... Just google it.....

Sure,
If you can find some objective sources. What you sent me, was from the same class, category, and type of so called journalists that HK, Mom, and the Gypsy subscribe to in order to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt among the troops here.

objective:
4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

 

[JJFlash]

I love you guys! ::sniffle:::biggrin:

I am usually the lone voice trying to correct decades of misinformation & ignorance.

We're here for ya, Boomer! :yu:

 

[ronwill]

Sure,
If you can find some objective sources. What you sent me, was from the same class, category, and type of so called journalists that HK, Mom, and the Gypsy subscribe to in order to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt among the troops here.

objective:
4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

My bet is that any source that you don't agree with will be clumped together. Explain to me how we're supposed to bow down to something you say or sources you post simply because you agree with them.

 

[Boomer]

My bet is that any source that you don't agree with will be clumped together. Explain to me how we're supposed to bow down to something you say or sources you post simply because you agree with them.

Indeed... His source for the Confederate flag info was some lib professors blog. I would of been less irritated if he used his own blog for the source.
Its not even worth the time rebutting.

 

[Glockster20]

Indeed... His source for the Confederate flag info was some lib professors blog. I would of been less irritated if he used his own blog for the source.
Its not even worth the time rebutting.

"Garbage in, garbage out"

 

[theicemanmpls]

Indeed... His source for the Confederate flag info was some lib professors blog. I would of been less irritated if he used his own blog for the source.
Its not even worth the time rebutting.

THE BLOG There were several reference sources available regarding the flag, that today, symbolizes the American confederacy.
During the time of the American civil war, there were several different flags that the confederacy used. The stars and bars is the best know.

My own personal feelings are the following.
I have completed several hours of genealogy studies about my family ancestry.
What I found was quite interesting. At least one ancestor took up arms against the king during the revolution.
During the war between the states, one ancestor was farmer in southern Indiana, and joined a light artillery unit. On my fathers side, I located a gentleman from Alabama, who also was in the artillery. These two gentlemen participated in two battles were each were on opposing sides. It is likely, that they were sending cannon balls in each others direction at the same time. If one had struck home, then I wouldn't be here engaging all of you in this outstanding website.
I know some here would be pleased as I can be a rather sharp thorn when I have an opinion.

I was tempted, to join the sons of the Confederate veterans organization, and receive a certificate of membership. I decided to save my funds.
The certificate would have gone where all the others are, in a envelope, in a file, in a cabinet.
Some like to show their accomplishments. Knock yourself out, I say. Just not for me.
I am getting long winded here.
I feel the flag is a mixed blessing. For the southerners, yes a source of pride.

What about for the stupid? and ignorant? You all know, the racists and white supremacy organizations.
Many display the confederate flag.

The majority of people in this country do not care for racists and their organizations.
They see that flag, and you have lost them.

Many black people are offended. One acquaintance of mine thinks its funny. He goes into his "white southern boy routine"

Back to that pickup truck. It sent a message of retaliation to all of Islam. Above it was a symbol; of what many here consider a flag of hate.

Is there a correct way to fly that flag without pissing someone off? I am not aware of any.

If a visitor to America saw this, what the hell would he think?

Don't care? I do.

Like it or not, it ain't about "us" anymore. The whole world is invovled.
You will be reminded, next time your Dell computer needs service.

 

[HK4U]

You know I have seen more than my fair share of Malcolm X hats. Does it offend me?
absolutely. Is there anything I can do about? No because it is not politically correct to object to it. If I do I am labeled raciest.

I am offended by a Muslim/Marxist Usurper sitting in the Oval Office. If I say anything about it I am labeled a raciest because he happens to be black.

I do not have a confederate flag but you know what, I think I will get one because I really do not care what everyone else thinks. As far as I am concerned if someone else does not like it they can go to, Well that is all I have to say about that.

 

[KathleenElsie]

It is very unfortunate when a hate group takes up a symbol and uses it hence tainting it foreaver... Case in point the Nazi swastika was used by the early American Indians as a good luck charm, as had other society's, but it will be forever tainted by Hitler and his evil....

You mean like the rainbow and the color pink also? The cold hard fact is that anything can be turned into something of hate. We just need to refuse to allow things to become something they were not originally intended to be.

 

[KathleenElsie]

We're here for ya, Boomer! :yu:

Don't cry Boomer. I am sending a big hug to you.

 

[theicemanmpls]

You know I have seen more than my fair share of Malcolm X hats. Does it offend me?
absolutely. Is there anything I can do about? No because it is not politically correct to object to it. If I do I am labeled raciest.

I am offended by a Muslim/Marxist Usurper sitting in the Oval Office. If I say anything about it I am labeled a raciest because he happens to be black.

I do not have a confederate flag but you know what, I think I will get one because I really do not care what everyone else thinks. As far as I am concerned if someone else does not like it they can go to, Well that is all I have to say about that.

God bless the boys of the Confederacy.

Stonewall, Beauregard, Amistead, Johnston, Hood, Bragg, Stuart, Longstreet, Lee...hearing and writing these names makes my humble heart palpitate with reverence.

 

[Sheldon]

Sure,
If you can find some objective sources. What you sent me, was from the same class, category, and type of so called journalists that HK, Mom, and the Gypsy subscribe to in order to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt among the troops here.

objective:
4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Sure You first... What are your non biased non politically opinionated sources to refute my data, I can literally post hundreds of links to sources that are all in agreement to my post, but in the interest of not eating up server space will not. Bottom line here when so many people and sources are in agreement there must be some truth to the issue....

College professors opinions or blogs will not be accepted as a credible source, 99.5% of all US colleges are full of so called learned people that have an opinion that is false and wish to push their agenda on others, bumped into a number of them through the years....

Case in point, anyone here remember when John Lott's book "More Guns Less Crime" was first released.... and the Professor that wrote a book to counter... How the founders did not have many guns, did not want guns, did not mean what they said in the second, showed his studdies.... Book went viral among the anti crowd, won a literary prize, under scrutiny was prooven to be a total fallacy, author was discredited, ordered to return his prize... and the lesson gained here is take any opinion you get from a College Professor with a grain of salt....

 

[theicemanmpls]

Sure You first... What are your non biased non politically opinionated sources to refute my data, I can literally post hundreds of links to sources that are all in agreement to my post, but in the interest of not eating up server space will not. Bottom line here when so many people and sources are in agreement there must be some truth to the issue....

College professors opinions or blogs will not be accepted as a credible source, 99.5% of all US colleges are full of so called learned people that have an opinion that is false and wish to push their agenda on others, bumped into a number of them through the years....

Case in point, anyone here remember when John Lott's book "More Guns Less Crime" was first released.... and the Professor that wrote a book to counter... How the founders did not have many guns, did not want guns, did not mean what they said in the second, showed his studdies.... Book went viral among the anti crowd, won a literary prize, under scrutiny was prooven to be a total fallacy, author was discredited, ordered to return his prize... and the lesson gained here is take any opinion you get from a College Professor with a grain of salt....

OK, this could go on for years.

I am in total agreement about academia. College level instructors, and professors. Some are outstanding. Others, are a waste of good oxygen. The ones that iterated me the most, were the ones that insisted that everyone adopt their personal norms, values, and goals.

The ones I respected the most were the ones that challenged your mind. Just like a personal trainer challenges your body.

Here are the facts.

All Muslims, are not terrorists.

You can't tell the nice ones from the bad ones just by looking at them.

To condemn an entire group of people for the actions of few is just wrong.

911 must be avenged. Those responsible must be held accountable. Those who harbor these terrorists will be held responsible.

Our country must not be attacked again.

Try to resolve all differences peacefully. Only use force as a last resort. However, meet force with force.

 

[6shootercarry]

Sure You first... What are your non biased non politically opinionated sources to refute my data, I can literally post hundreds of links to sources that are all in agreement to my post, but in the interest of not eating up server space will not. Bottom line here when so many people and sources are in agreement there must be some truth to the issue....

College professors opinions or blogs will not be accepted as a credible source, 99.5% of all US colleges are full of so called learned people that have an opinion that is false and wish to push their agenda on others, bumped into a number of them through the years....

Case in point, anyone here remember when John Lott's book "More Guns Less Crime" was first released.... and the Professor that wrote a book to counter... How the founders did not have many guns, did not want guns, did not mean what they said in the second, showed his studdies.... Book went viral among the anti crowd, won a literary prize, under scrutiny was prooven to be a total fallacy, author was discredited, ordered to return his prize... and the lesson gained here is take any opinion you get from a College Professor with a grain of salt....

Especially at CA and NY universities. The liberal Kool-Aid served there is spiked well above recommended dosage levels.:bad:

Peace...

 

[theicemanmpls]

A liberal education opens your mind. As the TV commercial says. "A mind is a terrible thing to waste".

Not all colleges and university's are created equal.

Academia is a huge business. It is a money maker.

I was educated on both coasts. Liberal professors? For sure. Like I said earlier. Some were just outstanding. Other's were to put it lightly; horsepoopie.

Yes, the cool aid was very strong. Copious amounts of beer and other substances diluted it's effects.

What about the institutions of higher learning that develops graduates with closed minds? Liberty U comes to mind for example.

IMO, closed loop thinking is a waste of good brain cells.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Especially at CA and NY universities. The liberal Kool-Aid served there is spiked well above recommended dosage levels.:bad:

Peace...

Well the goal was to control the educational system so that "progress" could be made. LOL the Democrats that are RICH are RICH beyond belief and the Democrats that are poor are POOR beyond anything a Rich Democrat can imagine. So the idea is to take from those that worked for the things they have and give them to others. After all it probably makes the poor on welfare Happy when they see $3 million dollar weddings and politicans living high on the workers tax monies.

 

[JJFlash]

From Newt Gingrich (whom I consider brilliant). He makes the case that Islamic terrorists are only part of the issue; the initiation of Sharia law is being engendered by Muslims of all stripes. This was not the complete article. Note the last sentence.

The problem of creeping sharia is most visibly on display in France and in the United Kingdom, where there are Muslim enclaves in which the police have surrendered authority and sharia reigns. However, worrisome cases are starting to emerge in the United States that show sharia is coming here. Andy McCarthy's writings, including his new book The Grand Jihad, have been invaluable in tracking instances in which the American government and major public institutions have been unwilling to assert the protections of American law and American values over sharia's religious code. Some examples include:

In June 2009, a New Jersey state judge rejected an allegation that a Muslim man who punished his wife with pain for hours and then raped her repeatedly was guilty of criminal sexual assault, citing his religious beliefs as proof that he did not believe he was acting in a criminal matter. "This court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited." Thankfully, this ruling was reversed in an appellate court.

In May 2008, a disabled student at a public college being assisted by a dog was threatened by Muslim members of the student body, who were reluctant to touch the animal by the prescription of sharia. The school, St. Cloud State, chose not to engage the Muslim community, but simply gave the student credit without actually fulfilling the class hours so as to avoid conflict.

In a similar instance in November 2009, a high school senior in Owatonna, Minn., was suspended in order to protect him from the threat of violence by radical Islamists when he wrote an essay about the special privileges afforded his Somali Muslim counterparts in the school environment.

In order to accommodate sharia's prohibition of interest payments in financial transactions, the state of Minnesota buys homes from realtors and re-sells them to Muslims at an up-front price. It is simply not the function of government to use tax money to create financial transactions that correspond to a religious code. Moreover, it is a strategy to create a precedent for legal recognition of sharia within U.S. law.

Amazingly, there are strong allegations that the United States now owns the largest provider of sharia financing in the world: AIG.

Last month, police in Dearborn, Mich., which has a large Muslim population, arrested Christian missionaries for handing out copies of the Gospel of St. John on charges of "disturbing the peace." They were doing so on a public street outside an Arab festival in a way that is completely permissible by law, but, of course, forbidden by sharia's rules on proselytizing. This is a clear case of freedom of speech and the exercise of religious freedom being sacrificed in deference to sharia's intolerance against the preaching of religions other than Islam.

Shockingly, sharia honor killings-in which Muslim women are murdered by their husbands, brothers or other male family members for dishonoring their family-are also on the rise in America but do not receive national attention because they are considered "domestic disturbances." (A recent article in Marie Claire Magazine highlights recent cases and the efforts to bring national attention to this horrifying trend.)

Cases like this will become all the more common as radical Islamists grow more and more aggressive in the United States.

It is in this context that the controversy over the proposed mosque near Ground Zero must be seen

------------------------

I would vote for Newt for President in a flippin' heartbeat.

 

[Glockster20]

From Newt Gingrich (whom I consider brilliant). He makes the case that Islamic terrorists are only part of the issue; the initiation of Sharia law is being engendered by Muslims of all stripes. This was not the complete article. Note the last sentence.

The problem of creeping sharia is most visibly on display in France and in the United Kingdom, where there are Muslim enclaves in which the police have surrendered authority and sharia reigns. However, worrisome cases are starting to emerge in the United States that show sharia is coming here. Andy McCarthy's writings, including his new book The Grand Jihad, have been invaluable in tracking instances in which the American government and major public institutions have been unwilling to assert the protections of American law and American values over sharia's religious code. Some examples include:

In June 2009, a New Jersey state judge rejected an allegation that a Muslim man who punished his wife with pain for hours and then raped her repeatedly was guilty of criminal sexual assault, citing his religious beliefs as proof that he did not believe he was acting in a criminal matter. "This court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited." Thankfully, this ruling was reversed in an appellate court.

In May 2008, a disabled student at a public college being assisted by a dog was threatened by Muslim members of the student body, who were reluctant to touch the animal by the prescription of sharia. The school, St. Cloud State, chose not to engage the Muslim community, but simply gave the student credit without actually fulfilling the class hours so as to avoid conflict.

In a similar instance in November 2009, a high school senior in Owatonna, Minn., was suspended in order to protect him from the threat of violence by radical Islamists when he wrote an essay about the special privileges afforded his Somali Muslim counterparts in the school environment.

In order to accommodate sharia's prohibition of interest payments in financial transactions, the state of Minnesota buys homes from realtors and re-sells them to Muslims at an up-front price. It is simply not the function of government to use tax money to create financial transactions that correspond to a religious code. Moreover, it is a strategy to create a precedent for legal recognition of sharia within U.S. law.

Amazingly, there are strong allegations that the United States now owns the largest provider of sharia financing in the world: AIG.

Last month, police in Dearborn, Mich., which has a large Muslim population, arrested Christian missionaries for handing out copies of the Gospel of St. John on charges of "disturbing the peace." They were doing so on a public street outside an Arab festival in a way that is completely permissible by law, but, of course, forbidden by sharia's rules on proselytizing. This is a clear case of freedom of speech and the exercise of religious freedom being sacrificed in deference to sharia's intolerance against the preaching of religions other than Islam.

Shockingly, sharia honor killings-in which Muslim women are murdered by their husbands, brothers or other male family members for dishonoring their family-are also on the rise in America but do not receive national attention because they are considered "domestic disturbances." (A recent article in Marie Claire Magazine highlights recent cases and the efforts to bring national attention to this horrifying trend.)

Cases like this will become all the more common as radical Islamists grow more and more aggressive in the United States.

It is in this context that the controversy over the proposed mosque near Ground Zero must be seen

------------------------

I would vote for Newt for President in a flippin' heartbeat.

Right there with ya!!! Newt is the man!!!

 

[Boomer]

Gotta love Newt! I would also vote for him in a second!

IMO we need to "get real" about Islam. They are not who they portray themselves to be. It is just a matter of time before it comes to blood (truth is it already has). They are using our rights & freedoms against us to advance their own cause.
If not stopped one day each of us will wake (either literally or figuratively) to a dagger at our throats.
To think less is to be naive.

I just finished a study on Islam. It was a real eye opener & I recommend it to any God fearing patriotic American.

The Dark Side of Islam

 

[JJFlash]

More from the article by Newt; I didn't want to dish up a huge post, so I broke it up a little.

---------------------------

There are many reasons to doubt the stated intentions of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Ground Zero mosque. After 9/11 he did not hesitate to condemn the United States as an "accessory" to the attacks but more recently refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. This is unsurprising considering he has well-established ties to U.S. branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. He has also refused to reveal the sources of funding for the mosque project, which is projected to cost $100 million.

More importantly, he is an apologist for sharia supremacy. In a recent op-ed, Rauf actually compared sharia law with the Declaration of Independence. This isn't mere dishonesty; it is an Orwellian attempt to cause moral confusion about the nature of radical Islamism.

The true intentions of Rauf are also revealed by the name initially proposed for the Ground Zero mosque--"Cordoba House"--which is named for a city in Spain where a conquering Muslim army replaced a church with a mosque. This name is a very direct historical indication that the Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate.

 

[Conservative Wife & Mom]

JJFlash posted: The problem of creeping sharia is most visibly on display in France and in the United Kingdom, where there are Muslim enclaves in which the police have surrendered authority and sharia reigns. However, worrisome cases are starting to emerge in the United States that show sharia is coming here.

Is it possible that the incidences of "creeping sharia law" within the United States are because we have a Muslim in the WH? Wish I had the resources and the time to send every single person who voted for the Usurper a sympathy card for the demise of our Constitutional Republic. :angry: