Wednesday, July 7, 2010

INFILTRATION, a book report by my friend RugCenter..

My buddy (RugCenter), who writes a wonderful weekly email to friends covering his opinions about the week in politics, culture, etc., included his thoughts on the things he learned from the book INFILTRATION, and I wanted to have you read it and see what you think:

I finished the book Infiltration and it has some disturbing issues. The author claims that we can credit the muslims with getting Bush elected in 2000. Here's the scoop. Muslims usually vote Democrat, but Gore had a Jewish VP, so they went with Bush. That way they could claim "family values and tolerance." Professor Sami al-Arian, a now convicted terrorist, led the "get out the vote for Bush" in the muslim community in FL. Before 9-11 (but after the many terrorist activities before 9-11) the muslims were miffed that people were suspicious of them. They had talked Bush into removing any profiling of mid-eastern people, and also got him to agree to banish using secret evidence to get terrorist suspects deported. Then came 9-11 and Bush backed down. Yet muslims voted overwhelmingly for "W" in FL before 9-11, so the point can be valid.

A few other names pop up. Grover Norquist was a staunch right-winger, He married a mid-eastern woman and became a strong supporter of muslims. Carl Rove also was in the mix, trying to maintain muslim support for the GOP. In his 2000 campaign, Bush was advised to include the word mosque whenever he mentioned churches and synagogues. The muslims bristle that people see America as being in the Judeo-Christian sphere, and demand that be changed to Judeo-Christian-muslim tradition! Bush readily complied and even had an imam deliver an invocation at the GOP convention that nominated him.

Two other big Islamophiles are John Conyers and David Bonier, both representing the state of Michigan in Congress, MI is home to the biggest contingent of muslims in America, so these guys were selling out the USA to stay elected. Is RC biased, or just telling the truth? As Harry "Give 'em hell" Truman noted, "I never gave anybody hell. I just told the truth about them and they thought it was hell!" Now we have at least 2 muslims in Congress representing MN and IN. These guys have a lot of clout to see our intelligence reports. And true muslims say they never can really be Americans until we honor Allah and accept Sharia law. Just whose side are they on?

People are scared to death to profile mid-eastern men because our own government will support muslim law suits on discrimination. So we have a random system that avoids looking at the true characteristics that point out likely terrorists! The "law" prevents focusing on muslims and Arabs. Isn't that basically confusing a "religion" with an ethnicity--assuming Arabs are muslims? It's a pretty good statistical bet that they are. Would airport guards assume that all blue-eyed blonds are Lutherans or Hispanics are Roman Catholic or Southern blacks are Baptists? The data don't lie. It's not a random correlation that Arab terrorists are muslims. How may non-muslims were on those attack planes?

Our First Amendment protects religious freedom. Yet Christians are barred from wearing a cross in many paces of employment. Christians are told not to mention Jesus in public. Nativity scenes are removed from the public square. Our churches are not allowed to endorse any candidates or criticize the government from the pulpit if they want to remain tax-exempt. Yet the imams who are paid with federal money to serve the muslims in prisons spew anti-American hatred in their sermons (often spoken in Arabic) and encourage the inmates to use violence to advance Islam. Isn't this clearly mixing state and church? Yet our tax money pays these imams to convert our own people and turn against us. OK, Congress has paid chaplains, but I don't think they actually "steal sheep" from other religions. As Justice Warren Burger once noted, "The prayers in Congress are not part of the law-making process, so are allowed." The muslims have used our own freedoms against us and the liberals egg them on.

How do you get muslims to testify in a court if they don't accept the Bible? Would they swear to tell the truth based on the Koran, a book that allows muslims to lie if it benefits them and Islam? Talk about a conflict of interest. Even Yogi Berra couldn't come up with such a convoluted sense of logic! End of article.

Z: I believe RugCenter makes a lot of good points and that the book has facts not many of us were aware of. ...but we should be. Think there's any antidote for this 'infiltration'?



JINGOIST said...

Z wrote:
"The muslims have used our own freedoms against us and the liberals egg them on.

How do you get muslims to testify in a court if they don't accept the Bible? Would they swear to tell the truth based on the Koran, a book that allows muslims to lie if it benefits them and Islam? Talk about a conflict of interest."

They truly are a foreign presence Z. They look at jihad in a far broader way than we do. Lying is perfectly acceptable when dealing with the infidel. It reminds me of leftists and their damned habit of serial dishonesty. Our manchurian president lies pretty much ALL the time, and he's a creature of the far left AND a "former" muslim.

We are being occupied and undermined by a foreign presence.

Always On Watch said...

I bought this book when it first came out. Believe me, the book makes your hair stand on end.

And the book makes the point that neither the Republican or Democratic parties understand the threat of Islam, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, which operates under different names here in the United States.

BTW, Grover Norquist is still on the scene.

Craig and Heather said...

As it is a dominionist religion, Islam compels devotees to claim and defend land for Allah. Infiltration of society and govt shouldn't come as a surprise.

Atheistic Communism seems to have had a similar goal over the years and even uses similar methods.

It's interesting to me that both elements are in play here and the two ideologies cannot peacefully co-exist on a long-term basis.

We are being occupied and undermined by a foreign presence.

It's the presence that is behind the propagation of both of the aforementioned worldviews.

Faith said...

Seems they are succeeding at what they've planned to do for decades now. About a year before 9/11 I happened to read "Philistine," a book by a Christian living in Israel that documented Muslim plans to infiltrate all the countries of the world with the ultimate aim of putting the whole world under Allah.

I did my best to make the information known but even after 9/11 I found it hard to get anyone to listen. Few at FPM were ready to hear this in those days, for instance, and I had some knock-down battles with "Morgaan" there, one very aggressive Muslim-lover. Conservative supposedly. Now FPM is one of the main purveyors of the truth about Islam but it took a few years before even conservatives were ready to recognize that there is something within Islam itself that is dangerous. I remember when "Canadian Steve" finally studied up on the Koran for himself and stopped arguing with me.

The scariest thing IS how they've been facilitated by our own. Bush's calling Islam "a religion of peace" and allowing an imam to pray in the National Cathedral right after 9/11 set my teeth on edge for sure. They must regard it as proof of Allah's power that it is so easy for them to gain a foothold here thanks to the easy perversion of our laws.

I agree that there seems to be something supernatural going on. I interpret it as God's judgment against us allowing this evil religion so much leeway. What's the answer? Return to our Christian roots. Don't see it happening yet.

Opus #6 said...

Now that the Saudis own a part of Fox News, I see a lot fewer stories on Islam. Funny thing, that...

Leticia said...

I may have to see if the library has this book. However, most of what was stated here denotes a very frightening picture of the Muslims infiltrating our government, schools, etc.

Our ignorant and blind liberal government has embraced this radical culture with open arms. And have tossed aside our Christian heritage.

Sharia law will be next.

Z said...

Heather, what comes as a 'surprise' is that we're allowing this here through our own rights.

Opus, I have noticed that, stopped almost immediately after we heard more Saudi money's involved.

I wonder how the journalists feel as they're good, solid Conservative Americans and can't be too pleased...I doubt their women, who are SO sharp and happen to be beautiful, too, are too pleased about the cameras always panning back to make sure they catch the crossed legs, too, huh? I wonder that an Arab-owned station even allows that :-)

So, everybody; what about the Bush mention and his bows to islam .."we all worship the same God"..I'll never forget that as long as I live.

Ducky's here said...

We're having a real heat wave here, right now. I think given the heat the required tin foil hat makes this impractical right now.

Do they still require swearing on the bible in court? Definite violation of the establishment clause and now you see the importance of that principle.

Brooke said...

I didn't know a Bible was still used in court. I've been to small claims ( I was the plaintiff) and was asked if I was being truthful.

I got called for jury duty once, but it got cancelled. Besides the point, though.

Anyway, I haven't read this one. I'll have to check it out.

Z said...

Brooke..imagine? "Are you being truthful?" When people have no compass, no moral standard by which to go by, they will say anything.
Elected officials are sworn in on the Bible...Muslim officials can now swear on the Koran, but they can lie as the Koran states if it's anything that could hurt islam.

Craig and Heather said...

Heather, what comes as a 'surprise' is that we're allowing this here through our own rights.

I guess I don't really see it to be much of a mystery.

Postmodern thinking has robbed our society of definite standards of right and wrong.

Our public re-education system has been indoctrinating children to accept that "tolerance" means "love the sinner and his sin". And it has frequently represented our democratic republic as "a democracy" (toxic teaching when combined with postmodernist "truth for you is whatever you believe it to be"

The church has fallen asleep at the wheel and gotten tangled up in not only postmodern thinking, but health/wealth prosperity heresy and culturally "relevant" entertainment that is passed off as worship. Many Christians are out of touch with Christ.

Many Americans have been lulled into a stupor from a long period of national prosperity and we like to think of ourselves as being a generous, non-judgmental society that allows for any belief system to be freely practiced without persecution. We tend to think of ourselves as a friend to the world, even though there are plenty of groups who openly despise us.

The reality is that certain ideologies cannot be peacefully practiced alongside American ideals because they don't allow for freedom of speech or religion or even conscience, for that matter. They are militant by nature and there is no hesitation concerning whether or not it is ethical to allow us to believe the lie that they actually mean us no harm.

It is disturbing that our own system is being used against us. But I can't say I've been surprised by it.


Z said...

H, I meant 'surprised' because we are America and this kind of thing would never have flown even 10 years ago...when our gov't wasn't quite so seemingly complicit with what's happening, when even Democrats didn't turn blind eyes toward shocking attempts at taking away our freedoms (health care, corporation autonomy, etc.). The Black Panther intimidation thing is a perfect example. With an honest, pro-American media and a government more concerned with the law/constitution than their own party's power (both sides), this would not have happened.

Ducky's here said...

But heather, what if you wake up to the knowledge that your belief system is in the minority.

Would you want it protected?

Craig and Heather said...

But heather, what if you wake up to the knowledge that your belief system is in the minority.

Would you want it protected?


I'm not advocating abuse of anyone who sees things differently.
Not Muslims.
Not communists.
Not Democratic Socialist Catholics who tech films and shop at Whole Foods and want to see people show a little more concern for the less fortunate among us.

I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't like for my view to remain under protected status. And I value the freedoms which have been legally granted to all citizens of our country. I'm just not naive enough to believe those who hold to certain other belief systems are as appreciative of the supposedly universally granted freedoms we enjoy.

Jesus didn't promise me anything by way of political protection. It is written into our Constitution, but I've found it nowhere in Scripture. In light of what is happening in our country, I've had to accept that Christianity may well be given an unprotected minority status--just as it is in so many other countries that are dominated by communism and Islam and Hinduism.

I'm not dancing a jig over it, but I understand that I'm not omniscient and what I *think* I want may be exactly the opposite of what needs to be.


Anonymous said...

Do you know that muslims and the Amish are excused from buying health insurance in the healthcare bill? They are.

Supposedly muslims consider insurance to be like gambling. Uh huh. Sure! Hmmmm, I wonder if Christian Scientists are excused. I haven't heard they are.

So Ducky, what about the separation of church and state? Is there or isn't there? Oh, I see just not for those "chosen people", like muslims.

And who pays for muslim and Amish healthcare, if not insurance? Is it just free? To be paid by the taxpayer? Just asking. I think they'd call that dhimmitude right?

IMO they threw in the Amish to legitimize this exception.


Craig and Heather said...

So Ducky, what about the separation of church and state? Is there or isn't there? Oh, I see just not for those "chosen people", like muslims.

Separation is a nice concept.

Practically speaking, it isn't possible. Man, by nature, is a "religious" creature and will end up worshiping something. Governing laws are based on standards derived from someone's idea of right and wrong.

Even atheism defaults to "worship of humanness" in the void left after kicking out the "primitive" concept of God". It's as much a religion as Islam.

"Separation of Church and State" is not about keeping religion out of government but rather has become code for "Judeo-Christian ideals are not welcome in the political sphere"


Z said...

Pris, you are so stinkin' smart...great logic there.

By the way; here's some of my own: if it's because of GAMBLING, and gambling is illegal in most of America, why can't WE bow out, our whole country, on those grounds!?!!
I think you're right about the Amish inclusion.

Heather, it's not possible, but Pris is right...that's the term used and it is understood, no matter if it's possible or not...the understanding of 'separation of church and state' is used and understood.....
You're right...who enters anything, be it voting booth, a contract, or giving a simple opinion not based on beliefs, faith-filled or atheistic?

What a very ungodly, dangerous path the liberal secularists (and some lib christians) are leading us down. Thank God He is in control and this is all happening for His purpose.

(which I have to remind myself much more often these days!!! :-))

Craig and Heather said...

I gotcha Z and wasn't arguing with Pris. Just keying off of her comment.

I'm tired of the word games and apparent ignorance of so many people in our country.

Religion has been a defining element in every major culture I've looked at. In most civilizations, it has been a top-down thing involving the government. And it is, in a way, a unifying element of any society.

The only "non-religious" governmental systems about which I've read are the atheistic communist/fascist sorts. Which, again, simply put man on God's throne instead of recognizing some sort of God (or god)-gifted position of authority to the king/pharaoh/emperor/whatever.

Our pluralistic society is going to be naturally disjointed because there is no continuity of religious affiliation. It weakens us as a nation and encourages infighting.

Historically speaking, I don't see how making Christianity the official religion of a society would fix anything, either. That's been tried and people who didn't willingly convert were persecuted for it. We're not supposed to be looking for only external obedience, anyway. (sigh)

We looked for peace, but no good came; and for a time of health, but behold, trouble! Jeremiah 8:15

Faith said...

In answer to the question who pays for medical care for the uninsured Amish, from Amish Life FAQs:

The Amish do not participate in medical or insurance plans and instead pay for all medical costs themselves

Z said...

H "Our pluralistic society is going to be naturally disjointed because there is no continuity of religious affiliation. It weakens us as a nation and encourages infighting."
So well put.....

No, nobody would encourage an official religion of America...but the farther we've gone from good people going to church (and synagogue for that matter), the worse off our country's been, that is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, NO doubt about it.

Z said...

Faith, thanks for that...but, as I said, if this is about GAMBLING, then all of America should balk.

Faith said...

I've thought of it as gambling myself. You pay premiums against the chance that you are going to need coverage at some time. Perhaps we should take that seriously.

Anonymous said...

Gambling, insurance, a tax. It's what ever it has to be to get you to pay it--just like social security.

When social security first came out, it was sold as an insurance. "We're not taking your money away from you. We're just investing it in your financial insurance plan." This may have placated some people, but not the anti-insurance Amish. The Amish were willing to pay taxes but were opposed to insurance. So the Amish were told it is a tax and that they could pay it with a clean conscience.

So, call it whatever you like, just don't call it your own.


Z said...

"just don't call it your own".. PERFECT, tio.