A Brief History of Islam: Part 1 The Rise of Islam

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.” “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.” “Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities– but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” –Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248– 50).

Muhammad was born in 570 AD in the Arabian city of Mecca (present day Saudi Arabia). He was orphaned at an early age and raised by his Uncle. He worked primarily as a merchant until age 40, when he claimed to have been visited by the angel Gabriel and received his first revelation from God. Three years later he began to preach these revelations publicly. Initially he didn't gain many followers and was generally treated with hostility. Eventually he and his small band of followers were forced to leave Mecca for their own safety and relocated to Medina. There he gained many Jewish followers who converted to Islam. Soon he would seek revenge on Mecca for expelling him.

The Battle of Badr in 624 marks the first major battle between the Muslims and the Meccans, which ended in a decisive victory for Muhammad. The two forces would engage in several more battles over the years, which eventually culminated in a 10 year peace treaty, only to be broken in two years by Muhammad and Mecca was conquered without a fight. The fall of one the richest and most powerful cities in Arabia marked a shift in power and the rise of Islam. Meanwhile the alliance with the Jewish tribes began to break down as many Jews would not accept Muhammad as a prophet. After the Battle of the Trench in 627, Muhammad accused the Jews of treachery so the men were beheaded and the women and children were sold as slaves. Muhammad discovered it was far easier to spread his religion through violence than through peace. Soon after his conquest of Mecca, he conquered the majority of Arabia in just two years. It is of interest to note that the same black flag that Muhammad flew in his time, is the same black flag that Jihadists use today, including ISIS.

In the last ten years of his life he ordered 65 military campaigns alone. Before his death in 632, his final words were said to have been "I was ordered to fight all men until they say 'There is no God but Allah'". His followers were quick to continue where he had left off. Starting with what is present day Iraq, Islam began to systematically conquer the entire middle-east. By 700 AD they had conquered half the territory that had previously belonged to Christendom. From there Islam set it's sights on North Africa. In Alexandra, Egypt philosopher John Philoponus tried to save the famous Alexandrian library from the Muslim conquerors, but Caliph ‘Umar had had it destroyed, saying the Qur’an was sufficient, because those books agreeing with it are useless and those disagreeing are pernicious. After three forays into North Africa, it was finally conquered and remains a Muslim stronghold to this day.

A mere 80 years after Muhammad's death, Islam had spread as far East as China and the Indian Ocean, and as far West as Morocco. It then spread into Europe through the Iberian Peninsula and into Spain and southern Italy, as well as many major Mediterranean islands including Sicily, Corsica, Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, Malta, and Sardinia. These events set the stage for the next chapter. In part 2, Christendom strikes back.

Thoughts on #NeverTrump

I've always tended to believe that when faced with two undesirable candidates, it's always better to vote for the lesser of two evils. In fact I have done this on a number of occasions. But for the first time since I began voting (circa 2000), I'm inclined to sit this one out. This decision wasn't made lightly. In the beginning I sat on the fence regarding Trump, not sure what I was going to do. But the more he talked the less I liked, and his comments on abortion and tranny bathrooms was the final straw that broke the camels back. As a conservative and a Christian, there are a number of issues I have with Trump, which I have previously stated. The biggest issue for me is I'm tired, I'm tired of voting for candidates that no longer represent my values and principles. I've done it for Romney and McCain, and I just don't think I can do it again. I know what your saying, a no vote is the same as voting for Hillary. Well not quite, but perhaps not voting does, in a round about way, help the opposition. Granted, although in this case I predict Hillary will wipe the floor with him anyways. Why vote for a democrat-lite when you can have the real thing? My position is this, I'm willing to vote for the lesser of two evils two an extent, but I have my limits. When a candidate strays so far from my values and principles, it comes to a point that I cannot in good conscious vote for him. This is the reason I'm officially #NeverTrump.

Thoughts on veganism\vegetarians

You know, I don't really care what other people eat. I have a crazy idea that people should be free to eat what they want. If someone wants to eat meat or not that's up to them. I'm not interested in debating which is healthier. What I'm here to talk about is the vegans and vegetarians who want to shame anyone who eats meat.  I'm aware not all vegans/vegetarians are this way, and this is not directed toward them.What I'm talking about are the radical vegans & vegetarians who display an unearned morally superiority against anyone who doesn't eat like them. This extreme form of veganism\vegetarianism is more than a diet, it's an ideology.

The main selling point of the radically veggies is that they are more ethical by eating only vegetables. Okay, let's think about this. Ethics is defined as a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.  When you ascribe something as ethical, you are essentially turning it into quasi-religion. This explains the fervent attitude of treating people like heretics who don't eat like them. Second, what makes it so ethical? What holy writ are they ascribing it to besides their own opinions? By saying it's unethical to eat animals they are elevating animal life on par, and often above, human life. This is akin to pantheism.

I do believe environmentalism has led to an increase the veganism\vegetarianism, but beyond that I think people have become overly sensitive and sheltered from the realities of life. We live in a world where food is prepared behind closed doors. It's a far cry from our ancestors who had to hunt and kill their own food to survive. Nature is a violent and harsh world. It's not the rose colored view they we have today as we go home to our air conditioned houses. As a result we have become squeamish at the thought of killing our own food. If our ancestors thought that way, many of us wouldn't be here today.

As I said before, people should be free to eat what they want. Eating vegetables are fine, But there is no way vegetables alone is going to support a population of 7 billion, there is just not enough good farming land to go around.

Questions\thoughts to ponder:

If its unethical to eat animals why is it okay for animals to eat other animals?
Even if you eat only vegetables are you still not consuming something that is alive to live?
Why is it that so many who refuse to eat meat for ethical reasons have no problems with abortion?
By saying that it is unethical to eat meat they have elevated animals with humans. If animals are elevated with humans then human life is not special. If human life is not special then it is devalued.
If humans are nothing more than animals, the results is people will start treating each other like animals.
There is not enough farming land in the world to feed everyone with vegetables. In fact in order to clear land for farming it results in deforestation in some instances.
Killing in order to eat is the cycle of life. Even animals and bugs do it.
If it is unethical to eat meat then why are we not only physically capable of eating meat, but our bodies need protein to survive? Nothing beats animal protein.

Thoughts on Donald Trump

As it looks more and more likely that Trump will be the Republican nominee, and while I think he would be a better choice than Hilliary, I do have some serious issues with him. Chief among them are:

*He's too crass. He makes personal attacks instead of debating the issues. This including using crude language and sexual innuendos.
*He doesn't have any plans. He says a lot what he's going to do, but doesn't even have a general idea how hes going to do it.
*He's big on bravado and personal insults, but little on substance.
*He's not 100% pro-Israel. He has said Israel would have to "make sacrifices".
*He's not a conservative who believes in limited government and constitutional principles, he's more of a populist\nationalist.
*He flipflops. He's changed parties 5 times. He will say something one week and the next week say something completely different the next.
*It's debatable he's even Republican. He's given money to the Clinton Foundation, he has supported democrats in the past, he was in favor of Obamacare, he supported Obama's campaign in 2008, etc.
*He supports gun control, eminent domain, and Planned Parenthood.
*He was much too slow to disavow David Duke's endorsement. I'm not saying he's racist, but that delay tells me he cared more about losing votes than distancing himself from white supremacists.
*He doesn't encourage unity. I don't place all the blame on Trump for violence at some of his campaigns, I know groups like MoveOn and BLM also share the blame. However, he hasn't exactly dissuaded violence either. He has encouraged people to knock out protesters before.
*Finally, he's not a Christian but claims to be one anyways. Nothing in his personal life indicates he's a Christian, and when asked what his favorite verse he couldn't name one. He said he doesn't like having to ask God for forgiveness from his sins. He's been called a serial adulterer. The Constitution doesn't say someone has to be Christian to be president, however I take issues with someone claiming to be one just to pander to the Evangelicals.

My observation is people are voting for Trump because they are angry, they are tired of political correctness, 8 years of Obama, and the Republican establishment that doesn't fight the democrats on anything. I can understand that, but I'm just not sure Trump is the right man for the job and I'm afraid that 4 years from now, if he is elected, we may find ourselves sorely disappointed. For what it's worth, I hope I'm wrong.

Women in Combat

Recently the U.S. Department of Defense announced that it would lift the ban on women in combat. Since Obama became president in 2008, the left has increasingly used the military for social experiments, from allowing gays and Transgenders to openly serve to allowing beards, tattoos, and religious garb to be worn. All in the name of equality of course. They want a society where men and women are equal in every respect, while ignoring important physical and psychological distinctions that makes us different. At the risk of sounding sexist, men and women are not equal. Men are better suited than women at some things, and women are better suited than men at some things. Those are just the facts. These social experiments will ultimately weaken the military and cost more lives.

Historically men have done the hunting and fighting, while women have reared the children. There are always exceptions of course, but that's all they are. Rules should never be based upon the exceptions. In reality very few women could pass the same physical requirements set for men, even fewer could sustain those standards for extended periods of time under battlefield conditions. For this reason, the physical standards for women should not be lowered. The enemy won't discriminate, and bullets don't care if you're male or female. There are good reasons why men have always been the warriors and soldiers of society since time immemorial. The following is a partial comparison of the physical advantages men have over women:

*Men are taller.
*Have 40% more upper body strength and 33% more lower body strength.
*Have higher levels of testosterone, which allows them to have larger skeletal muscles.
*Have more Type 2 muscle fibers, which generate power, strength and speed.
*Have 56% greater lung volume per body mass.
*Have larger hearts, 10% higher red blood count, higher hemoglobin, allowing greater oxygen-carrying capacity.
*Higher circulating clotting factors, leading to faster healing of wounds and higher peripheral pain tolerance.
*Generally have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments.
*Convert more calories to muscle and energy reserves.
*Significantly higher hand grip strength.
*More aggressive.

These physical advantages give men an edge over women, which that makes them more suitable for physical combat. To further emphasize this point, the fastest women in the Olympics are still slower than the fastest boys in high school. Just to give you an idea, these are the current track records in the "world" for the women's Olympics compared to the United States records set by boys in high school track:

100 meters: 10.62 for women, 10.00 for boys
200 meters: 21.34 for women, 20.13 for boys
400 meters: 48.26 for women, 44.69 for boys
800 meters: 1:52.43 for women, 1:46.45 for boys
1500 meters: 3:53.96 for women, 3:38.26 for boys

Not only can high school boys outperform Olympic trained women, but the discrepancy becomes greater the distance. This is the reason men and women are segregated in sporting events, yet we feel the need to integrate them into combat, which is anything but a game.

There are other issues that are unique for women, which does not make them ideal for combat roles.  To put it bluntly, women have specific hygiene requirements which could become problematic to maintain on the battlefield. Monthly cycles, while being an annoyance and inconvenience in civilian life, could impact performance, which is crucial on the battlefield. And if a woman is captured on the battlefield, not only are they subject torture like men, but unlike men they are also subject to rape.

With men and women working in such close proximity, romantic relationships are inevitable, thus changing the dynamics and effectiveness of the combat unit. This is also an argument against homosexuals serving in the military. And what happens if someone gets pregnant? In the Navy for instance, where men and women are stuck on a ship most of the time, unplanned pregnancies are higher than in the general population and generally more disruptive. And this despite having access to contraceptives.

Some will point to the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), as an example that female combat soldiers are possible. However, that doesn't make it ideal. What is under reported is that female soldiers in the IDF suffer injuries at twice the rate of males.  One study indicated that 46% of female soldiers suffered injuries during their initial training period, as opposed to 25% of men. The injury rate for female soldiers in Karakal (infantry combat battalion) is 40% and a whopping 70% in the Artillery corps. The bone density of female combat soldiers is lower than that of men, which is why they suffer more injuries. In addition, women have 70% to 100% more body fat than men, which makes them slower and consume more energy, their muscle density is 33% is less, so they cannot carry as much weight as their male counterparts. What should also be noted is that Israel has female soldiers out of necessity. They are a small nation with greater immediate threats, so they need as many able-bodied soldiers as possible. This is the reason why men are required to serve a minimum of 3 years in the IDF, while women are required to serve 2 years.

As John Adams once said, facts are stubborn things. And the fact is, men are naturally more suitable for combat roles due to their physical and psychological makeup. I am certainly not opposed to women serving in the military, but for reasons previously stated, just not in ground combat. Men have historically done the fighting and faced the horrors of war so women wouldn't have to. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer it that way.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_athletics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_high_school_national_records_in_track_and_field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/01/29/baby-on-board-us-navy-reacts-to-high-rates-unplanned-pregnancies-among-sailors/
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/198853

Why poltical correctness sucks

Political Correctness sucks because:
It is is cultural Marxism.
It is fascism.
It seeks to control the behavior and thoughts of others.
It stifles freedom of speech.
It seeks to remove offenses but only accomplishes in sensitizing people to offenses, making them more easily offended and creating a vicious cycle.
It puts labels on everyone and breaks them down into categories and creating a polarizing Balkanization.
It doesn't solve anything but creates perpetual conflicts and divisions
It is based on feelings and emotions, devoid of logic and reason

In the end you can have political correctness or you can have freedom, but you can't have both.

Thoughts on Christian Bakeries refusing to bake gay wedding cakes.

Let's pose some hypothetical (and some not-so hypothetical) scenarios involving bakeries:

A Christian baker refuses to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple.

A Muslim baker refuses to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple. (Steven Crowded tested this scenario and was denied service).

A gay baker refuses to bake a pro-marriage cake for a Christian. (Theodore Shoebat tested this scenario and was denied service).

A black baker refuses to bake a pro-KKK cake for a white supremacist.

A Jewish baker refuses to bake a cake that says "Death to all Jews" for a Palestinian.

A baker refuses to bake a cake with pornographic imagery.

Of all these scenarios only one would get media attention for denying service. Can you guess which one this is? Not only is it hypocritical but it proves there is an agenda at work.