Verses of Violence: Comparing the Bible and Quran

We often hear people say “Islam is a religion of Peace,” or they want to make the point that Christianity is as bloody or violent as Islam. Dr. Michael Brown help to correct that myth by examining the holy books of both the Quran and the Bible. See what he has said below!

Wednesday, December 16, 2015, “In the Line of Fire,” by Michael Brown

When Christians point to the violent verses in the Quran, Muslims reply, "But what about the violent verses in the Bible?"

When Christians point to the violent verses in the Quran, Muslims reply, “But what about the violent verses in the Bible?”

How should we respond to this fair challenge from Muslims?

1. The violent verses in the Bible were for a specific time and place; the violent verses in the Quran are spoken in general terms.

In the Bible, God commanded Joshua to annihilate the Canaanites, meaning to kill men, women and children, since the Canaanites were considered guilty sinners. Centuries later, during the time of King Saul, the prophet Samuel said that it was God’s will to annihilate the Amalekites because of the sins they had committed.

While these commands seem monstrous to many readers today, they cannot possibly be applied to contemporary situations and they have never been considered normative for all times in either Judaism or Christianity.

In contrast, the Quranic injunctions to smite at the necks of unbelievers and to kill and punish them in various ways have been applied to contemporary situations since the days of Muhammad, right up until today.

(For Christian reflections on the command to kill the Canaanites, see Paul Copan and Matt Flanagan, Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to Terms with the Justice of God, and David T. Lamb, God Behaving Badly: Is the God of the Bible Angry, Sexist, and Racist?)

2. For Christians, the Old Testament is the foundation on which the New Testament is built and so the New Testament contains the final revelation. Significantly, there are no verses in the New Testament in which believers are called on to kill their enemies. For Muslims, the Quran is the final revelation.

In the Old Testament, the Israelites were commanded to drive out the Canaanites; in the New Testament, Christians are commanded to drive out demons (evil spiritual beings), not people. In the Old Testament, sins such as adultery and idolatry were punishable with the death penalty under Israelite law; in the New Testament, professing Christians who practice those sins are to be excommunicated (meaning, put out of the fellowship of believers), not executed.

For Jews, the Old Testament is read in the light of Jewish tradition, which also removed the death penalties for certain sins over a period of time. Jewish tradition also claims that some Old Testament laws were never meant to be taken literally (such as eye for eye, tooth for tooth, or the law calling for a woman’s hand to be chopped off for grabbing a man’s genitals when he was fighting her husband). Instead, Jewish tradition tells us that these laws always referred to monetary payment.ghout Islamic history, the violent verses have often been applied literally by Muslims in their treatment of unbelievers and enemies.

3. The ultimate example for Christians is Jesus. For Muslims, Muhammad is the perfect man and the model to be followed.

Jesus was crucified and ordered His followers not to defend Him from His fate. Muhammad, who began his mission as a preacher rather than a soldier, led pillaging raids (to get money for his followers); fought aggressive, offensive wars to subdue his enemies; and on one famous occasion, beheaded his Jewish captives.

In stark contrast, the most “violent” thing Jesus did was overthrow the tables of the money changers in the Temple and drive out the animals.

How can anyone compare the two?

Jesus is called the Lamb of God in numerous texts, speaking of His sacrificial death on the cross, and He is worshipped by Christians as the Lamb who was slain. Do Muslims commonly think of Muhammad in those terms?

The issue here is not whether it’s appropriate for Christians to defend themselves against terrorist attacks or whether Christians should serve in the military.

The issue is that the early Christians were killed for their faith rather than killing others for their faith. The early Muslims did, in fact, kill others for their faith, and many have continued to do so through the centuries.

So, when a Christian is killed by a radical Muslim for refusing to deny his faith, both the Christian and the Muslim can point to their leaders—Jesus and Muhammad—and say, “I am following the example of my leader,” one by being killed for his faith, the other by killing for his faith.

I’m quite aware of ugly aspects of Church history, including the violence of the Crusades (in particular, against European Jews who were not part of the military conflict between Christians and Muslims), but examples such as this prove the larger point: They are horrific exceptions to the rule and they are without New Testament support.

In contrast, wars fought in the name of Allah have a rich Islamic history, tracing back directly to Muhammad and the Quran.

As for wars that America engages in, such as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, while many Muslims view these as “Christian wars” (since America is perceived by the Muslim world to be a Christian nation), these wars have not been waged in the name of Christianity but rather in the name of national security. If America was an entirely secular nation, it could have engaged in such wars just as easily.

I do appreciate the fact that millions of Muslims, including many respected leaders, believe that the violent verses of the Quran were also for a specific time and season, and I applaud them for repudiating the theology, ideology and actions of radical Muslims worldwide.

At the same time, the close association between Muhammad, the Quranic verses of violence, and violent Islamic history cannot be denied.

This similar pattern cannot be found from New Testament times until today in practicing Christian circles. And where it can be found, it is aberrant.

Not surprisingly, while Muslims celebrate Muhammad’s bloody victory at Khaybar, Christians celebrate Jesus’ bloody death on the cross, followed by His glorious resurrection.

Michael Brown is the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire and is the president of FIRE School of Ministry. His newest book is Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide. Connect with him on Facebook at AskDrBrown or on Twitter @drmichaellbrown.

John Bolton – 2017 Foreign Policy and the 2016 Campaign

John Bolton, our former Ambassador to the United Nations and the non presidential candidate that never had the opportunity to run. He is one political American asset that sadly we will not have the benefit to profit from. In his address below he demonstrates a grasp of the political scene America is presently facing and articulates the political minefield left by our current administration for the one taking office in 2017.

2017 foreign policy & the 2016 campaign –
Idealized strategies founded on hypothetical scenarios no longer useful

Ambassador_John_Bolton_at_FITN_in_Nashua,_NH_by_Michael_Vadon_06_(cropped)By John Bolton
Sunday, December 13, 2015

Islamist terrorists have again shed American blood on American soil. The San Bernardino killers’ ideology is clear, as it was with the 9/11 hijackers. The continuing global threat from their terrorist comrades is not a criminal-law problem but a barbaric war against our country’s deepest principles.

It is, therefore, increasingly critical that national security take center stage in 2016’s political debate. With just over a year until Barack Obama’s term ends, presidential candidates must begin articulating foreign and defense policies based on the international reality they will inherit on Inauguration Day 2017.

The strategic environment Obama actually bequeaths to the incoming president will be the point of departure, not what exists today. Candidates must now be both more comprehensive in their strategic thinking and more directly address the world they will face after they finish the oath of office.

Idealized strategies founded on hypothetical scenarios are no longer useful.

Critiquing Obama’s daily failures also is no longer enough. Neither can we return to Jan. 20, 2009, and start over again. ISIS, collapsing national governments (indeed, chaos) in Iraq and Bashar Assad’s Syria, and Iran’s continuing nuclear-weapons program together constitute a critical focus for the new realism and specificity candidates must now demonstrate. Consider these key facts a new president will face:

• First, Obama has done precious little to reach his self-professed goal to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. For Obama, “ultimately” is very far off. Even after the Paris and San Bernardino savagery, Obama shows no hint of moving beyond his current flaccid efforts. Thus, by January 2017, the ISIS global threat likely will have become materially more serious.

• Second, despite repeatedly asserting that Syria’s Assad must be removed from power, the president has done almost nothing to make it happen. For years, Obama was paralyzed by fear that taking effective action against Assad would endanger his chances for a nuclear deal with Iran, Assad’s chief regional supporter.

Moreover, Obama and secretaries of State Clinton and Kerry consistently misread Russia’s position on Syria’s Ba’ath Party regime, claiming that Putin shared their goal of replacing Assad with some alternative regime. That never was true. Now, Russia has doubled down, building a substantial air base at Latakia, using air power to bolster Assad against the Syrian opposition.

So blind is Obama that he continues hoping Putin will change his mind. No way. If anything, 2016 will see Russia more entrenched militarily in Syria — and more adamantly behind the Ba’athist government. Moreover, because of the deeply flawed Vienna nuclear deal, Tehran, in just months, will gain access to more than $100 billion of previously frozen assets, thus providing resources to finance increased Iranian and Hezbollah military activity supporting Assad.

Obama’s unwillingness to act will therefore leave us, by Jan. 20, 2017, with Assad far more difficult to remove and the Moscow-Tehran-Damascus axis greatly strengthened.

• Third, Tehran by then also will have made another year’s worth of progress toward its long-sought objective of deliverable nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s recent report made clear that Iran continued military work on its nuclear program until at least 2009, well after the 2003 cut-off date asserted in the highly politicized (and now thoroughly discredited) 2007 National Intelligence Estimate. The IAEA also stressed Tehran’s continued stonewalling on key questions it never had answered fully or satisfactorily on military issues. These findings alone show how duplicitous and untrustworthy the ayatollahs remain.

Given this prognosis, it is unrealistic for candidates to talk about removing Assad from power, however desirable such an objective might be in the abstract. This does not mean we should accept Assad or work with his regime; it means that Obama’s mistakes have stuck us with Assad for the foreseeable future.

By January 2017, Russia will be even more entrenched in Syria, meaning either direct confrontation with a new president or accepting a trade Putin would delight in making: reduced Russian involvement in Syria in exchange for lifting the West’s Ukraine-related sanctions against Russia.

Sadly, given the chance, Obama and Europe would both likely make that trade. A new Republican president should not.

As has been true since 2011, Syria and Assad are a strategic side show. The real issue is the regime in Tehran. It is Tehran that is speeding toward nuclear weapons and provoking a regional nuclear arms race. It is Tehran that most threatens Israel. It is Tehran that keeps Assad in power. And it is Tehran that remains the central banker for international terrorism.

Accordingly, the new president must simultaneously pursue the elimination of Iran’s nuclear threat and a robust policy based on U.S. leadership and full participation, including ground forces, to destroy ISIS, not ultimately, but now. Assad simply is secondary to these larger objectives. A realistic 2017 American foreign policy should focus more on eliminating the actual threats we face, not merely on their symptoms.

You Won’t Believe What Atheists Want to Replace Bibles With in Hotel Rooms

Just about the time you think you have run into the last Godless group, then surface with yet another world saving demand. Just today the following was posted by our friends at Charisma.
10:30AM EST 12/11/2015 Troy Anderson

Atheists seeking 'Bible-free' hotel rooms. (Reuters)

Atheists seeking ‘Bible-free’ hotel rooms. (Reuters)

The nation’s largest association of atheists and agnostics has started a campaign to convince the hotel and motel industry to offer “Bible-free” rooms.

In a statement, the Freedom From Religion Foundation said it asked the hospitality industry to be more hospitable to non-Christian and nonreligious clientele by offering “Bible-free” rooms.

In a letter to the American Hotel and Motel Association, the FFRF said Gideons International is “exploiting hotels and motels to proselytize a captive audience.”

“Those who must read the Bible every day will surely take precautions to travel with their own copies,” wrote Co-Presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor on behalf of FFRF’s 23,000 nonreligious members. “The rest of us deserve a break from mindless evangelizing when we are on vacation.

“Many of your guests are freethinkers—atheists, agnostics, skeptics or ‘nones’—who are deeply offended to be charged high fees only to be proselytized in the privacy of their own bedrooms.”

As an alternative, Barker and Gaylor said they would prefer placement of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in hotel and motel rooms.

Gideons International, which is known worldwide for placing Bibles in motels and hotels, hadn’t responded as of Thursday afternoon to the FFRF’s statement.

Gideons recently surpassed the 2 billion mark in distributing Bibles and New Testaments.

“It is more than just a number,” International President Dr. William E.G. Thomas said. “We are placing Bibles because they save souls. Behind every number is a face, behind every face a story, behind every story a priceless soul that could live throughout eternity.”


Blockbuster: DHS Whistleblower Says Obama Regime Shut Down Probe That Would’ve Stopped San Bernardino Attack

December 11, 2015
EIB WEb P{age Disgronifier


RUSH: Megyn Kelly had a blockbuster exclusive last night on the Fox News Channel.  The former customs and border agent, Philip Haney, claims that the State Department and Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties closed down an investigation. He was looking into a group named Tablighi Jamaat.  Philip Haney says the investigation was shut down because the Regime “did not want to profile Islāmic groups.”  Well, who the hell are we profiling if we’re not profiling Islāmic groups at Homeland Security and at immigration, for crying out loud?O-and-P-Haney-BPhilip Haney says the Feds “the feds also deleted his files, which included information on an organization with ties to Farook’s mosque…” This is a guy that had a connection with Syed Farook “Climate Change,” and the Regime ordered this guy to shut up, stand down, and destroy his files. And now he’s on television telling anybody who listen. “Philip Haney claims that if his investigation had been allowed to continue, Syed Farook [“Climate Change”] may have ended up on the no-fly list,” and if he had ended up on the no-fly list, he would not have met and connected with Tashfeen Malik, or Malik, and they would never have gotten married and they wouldn’t have become Bonnie and Clyde of Islam.

Audio sound bites.  Philip Haney last night with Megyn Kelly.  She said, “Philip, why do you believe the work you were pursuing may have led to the detection of these two?”

HANEY:  The network of individuals that we work with were tied to a large group called Tablighi Jamaat part a larger group called Deobandi.  We had thousands of organizations or individuals in the database, and we tracked them as they moved in and out of the United States on the visa waiver program.  Farook mosque is called Dar-al-Uloom.  It’s a global network of similar kinds of mosques under the umbrella of this organization.

RUSH:  Look at how much we knew.  Look at how much the regime knew about Syed Farook “Climate Change.”  Megyn Kelly says, “Under your program you would have identified the mosque, and then what would you have done?”

HANEY:  Individuals that are already in the case in 2012 went to that mosque.  Therefore as we are tracking them we would have put the red light on them.  Syed would have been put on the no-fly list because of his association with that mosque and or the K-1 visa that his wife was given may have been denied because of his affiliation with a known organization.

KELLY:  Mmm-hmm.  And you say they shut you down because they felt this was essentially profiling of Muslims?

HANEY:  They specifically got that, we got the internal memos, and it says that we are not allowed to develop a case based on Tablighi Jamaat  specifically or any specific group.

RUSH:  “We are not allowed to develop a case” on any Islāmic group.  Ladies and gentlemen, this is why I made a point yesterday — and it actually found its way on the television sound bites today.  I made a big point yesterday about the lack of moral authority in our government at the leadership level.  I mean, there’s nobody… You know, Obama doesn’t have any moral authority.  Obama can’t condemn anybody or he can’t praise anybody.  Obama’s lost the moral authority to have credibility and believability.

The problem in our country right now is that there’s nobody in leadership in Washington of any party. Nobody has any moral authority.  There’s nobody that’s uber-respected.  There’s nobody, when they tell you something, you believe ’em.  There’s nobody, when they condemn something or approve some, you believe them.  And evidence like this just exacerbates that.  What the hell are we supposed to be looking for if not Islāmic groups?  So what does this mean?  I’ll tell you what this means.  Terrorism, folks, is a national security issue.

Terrorism is a safety issue.  Terrorism against American citizens, domestic or international — stopping it, identifying it, protecting, defending, keeping safe American citizens — is in the top two/three things that the Constitution requires leaders in this country to do.  National security ought not be political.  There ought not be one aspect of national security that’s political. Yet this administration has politicized everything, and in the process they have corrupted it.


So now we have a whistleblower, Customs and Border Agent, working at the State Department and the Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties basically being shut down, for obviously political reasons.  And this is what gives rise to questions about Obama.  Why’s Obama so insistent? Why is he so insistent that we not discover what there is to be discovered about Muslims? Why would the Obama administration demand that an investigation like this be shut down, evidence destroyed and the man involved files deleted and told not to say a word about it?

Well, it’s those kind of questions that give rise to all kinds of answers. When there’s no leadership and no moral authority, then feel are free to fill administrate blanks.  And things like this don’t make common sense.  We’re in the midst of it, and have been arguably since 1993.  But, folks, you can go back to even prior to that, when there were terrorist hijackings of American airliners.  You could go back to the eighties and the terrorism against US military in the Middle East.  I mean, this is nothing new.

It’s intensifying, and now the war has been brought to our shores. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The 2001 World Trade Center.  Fort Hood.  The incidents are numerous and they are expanding. They are increasing in number.  San Bernardino last week.  Yet no matter where we turn in our government, we are told to not see what we see, to not think what is obvious.  And anybody in government who does see what there is to be seen apparently is shut down and their data deleted.  It’s being politicized.

Obviously, for some reason, Obama doesn’t want any of this known.  I’ll tell you what’s happening.  People within the Obama administration are now breaking.  Obama is becoming isolated on this.  We had the secretary of defense on television yesterday saying ISIS is not “contained.”  We’ve had a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff say ISIS is not “contained.”  Obama said in his Sunday night speech (that even Democrats are now panning as embarrassing) that ISIS is “contained,” that there is no threat of anything happening domestically, after a domestic event.


So even people in the Obama administration they are running away from Obama on this, and yet he steadfastly maintains there’s nothing to see here and that what you’re seeing isn’t what you think it is, and what you think it is you only think it because of your racism and bigotry and so forth and so on.  It’s leading to all kinds of questions that people are asking.  The questions are legitimate based on Obama’s proclamations and his actions and stories like this.

Questions are rooted around the curiosity of what is it that makes Obama so damn protective of Islamists, jihadists, Muslims? What in the world is going on here?  Well, you start filling in the blanks and answering the questions yourself, and I guarantee you millions of Americans are, and they’re coming up with all kinds of answers.  And none of them are pretty.  But our president has created… There’s a moral vacuum, folks, a moral vacuum at the highest levels of our government and leadership.  There is a moral vacuum, there is a leadership vacuum, and there is a common-sense vacuum.

There is so much that appears obvious that is not being acted on, so much that is obvious and is happening that we are told isn’t happening. But we can see it.  Some of our fellow citizens are being killed right before us and we’re told, “No, no, no, no, no, no, no.  You’re racist if you think that! You’re bigoted if you think that.  No, no.”  It’s inexplicable.  And then over here, everybody wonders why somebody like Donald Trump continues.


RUSH: Here we go.  Daily Caller. Yet another story that is similar to that from the whistleblower Philip Haney on Megyn Kelly last night.  This is from The Daily Caller.

“The FBI has taken heat for failing to immediately classify the San Bernardino shootings as terrorism, but a new report shows that FBI reluctance could have been due to external pressure from the White House.” Let’s go back to that night, that afternoon, the San Bernardino massacre.  Speaking for myself, when I got home, I turned on… Do you know I forgot what channel cable news channels are?  I watch them on in.  And I don’t have these auto-program buttons. So I said, “Wait a minute, what number is Fox?” It came back to me real quick.  But so rarely do I have it on anymore.

Anyway, so I turned it and I’m surfing around to the various networks, and they’re all… I’m sure you saw the same thing.  They’re all saying, “Oh, you know, we’ve got a name. We’ve been leaking a name, but it’s a very, very delicate situation and we can’t really announce the name.  It’s a very volatile situation out here, a very volatile situation around the world, what with what just happened in Paris and so forth. We’ve got a name, but it’s a very, very delicate situation here, very, very careful we have.  We cannot jump the gun on anything! I’m sure you understand,” blah, blah.  And on it went like that from six p.m. to 10 p.m.ISISBefore-and-After-C Meanwhile, we all knew the name. If you knew where to look, the name was already leaked. It was out there.  But the Drive-Bys wouldn’t go anywhere near it.  And from The Daily Caller we now know why.  “The FBI has taken heat for failing to immediately classify the San Bernardino shootings as terrorism…”We all knew it was.  Everybody knew it was! But, remember: Islam is a religion of peace, and therefore this could not have been perpetrated by Muslims.  I mean, that’s Barack Obama 101: “Islam is a religion of peace. There is no terrorism in Islam.  These are people perverting it.”

Well, “[A] new report shows that FBI reluctance [to tell us what we all knew] could have been due to external pressure from the White House. A source told Jack Murphy of SOFREP that the FBI instantly believed the shooting, which left 14 dead, to be a clear act of terrorism.”  By the way, I can confirm this.  You know, I don’t live as a hermit.  I’m not a recluse out here. Well… Meaning, I’m in contact with people.  I know people, former FBI people, and I was in contact with ’em — e-mail, chat, what have you.  We all knew, and people close to the investigation knew.

I was told I can’t tell you how many times between six p.m. and ten p.m. that night that, “Rush, don’t worry.  The FBI knows it’s terrorism and they’re on this like white on rice.  They know this is a terrorist attack. They know much more than they’re reporting.  Don’t worry about it.  Whatever you’re seeing on TV is just what you’re seeing on TV.  But they are already zeroed in on the fact that this is Islāmic terrorism.”  So that just added to the frustration. I know this, I’m told this, and many people were told, and I shared it with some friends of mine back and forth.

They’re watching television, and, “Well, we can’t say for sure! We’re being very delicate here. We’re very reluctant,” and so forth.  Well, it turns out here that the source who told this to Jack Murphy, the White House didn’t want this event to be reported as terrorism.  “The White House, however, didn’t feel the same way and quickly moved in to squash the terror classification. This source added that as soon as the shooting took place…” Are you ready for this?

“[As soon as the shooting took place, Obama convened a meeting with the National Security Council and the heads of other federal enforcement agencies to discuss a public relations strategy. Part of the reason for trying to avoid the designation of the shootings as terrorism is because it threatens to upset the [Regime]’s strategy in Syria. A case of Islāmic terrorism in the US would put additional pressure on the [Regime]’s to play a much more active role in the conflict,” because it’s spreading.


It’s spreading beyond Syria.  If it’s come to the United States, Obama has to get involved, he has to get in gear.  And he simply won’t because he has cozied up to Iran.  Now, we have mentioned this — we’ve repeated it from Walid Phares and a couple of other sources — that Obama strategically is tied with Iran when it comes to ISIS, and Iran doesn’t want anything happening to ISIS.  Iran is benefiting from the chaos, the sectarian violence between Sunni and Shi’ites.  Iran wants to control that region — and for some reason, Obama has ties to ’em.

But beyond that, folks, another example of how national security has been politicized. And the White House, according to this report, was exerting pressure on FBI agents on the ground, and the FBI command in Washington, to not refer this, to not classify this, to not go on TV and report it as terrorism, because it would have negative impact and consequences for Obama.  National security has even been corrupted because politics that comes from liberalism is by nature corrupt.  Liberalism is corrupt.  Liberalism is a lie. It’s a series of lies.

It does not rely on truth. In fact, can’t coexist with the truth. So Benghazi was the result of a video. They couldn’t have the truth of that out! That’s too close to the election in 2012.  And then we were also considering the 2016 election. We couldn’t have anything happen to Mrs. Clinton in 2012.  It would damage her chances, and the Democrat Party’s chances 2016.  In this case it’s Obama’s strategy in Syria that must be protected politically.  But it’s even greater than that.  There can’t be terrorism here because Obama already said on the Wednesday prior that there wasn’t any reason to fear terrorism in America, and that ISIS remained contained and was the JV team.

Less than a week later, the San Bernardino massacre happens.  Well, it can’t be terrorism!  Why, that would expose Obama as incompetent.  That would expose Obama as not knowing what he’s doing.  We can’t have that.  He’s the smartest man that’s ever been in the White House.  We can’t have any of this.  We can’t let any of this expose Obama as a fraud or as an incompetent or worse.  National security, something as encompassing and crucial as that has now been corrupted by the politics of Barack Hussein O and the Democrat Party.


So while the FBI, on Obama’s orders, was looking like fools to everybody watching on TV by refusing to say what we all knew — that the San Bernardino massacre was Islāmic terrorism — the whole world knew.  And this is striking.  Obama believes that he can make it so just by thinking it.  He can make it so just by saying it.  And you can’t blame him in a sense.  He’s childlike in many ways.  He’s been coddled as a special child, an only child all of his life.  The media has treated him as a mini-god.

So if Obama believes that all he has to do is say something is or isn’t and that makes it is or isn’t, the media has fed that. The media’s never challenged Obama. The media has never questioned, the media has never investigated, the media has never exposed. The media has done nothing but lapdog it up.  So after seven years, if you were Obama you would think you could get away with anything you want to say.  “That’s not terrorism. That’s gonna violate our values.”  Our values?  That’s another thing that just continued to grate on me.

These people speak of “our values.”

They’re butchering babies in Planned Parenthood, and we’re supposed to listen to them talk about American values?  I’m sorry, folks, it just doesn’t wash with me.  None of this does.  But with national security being compromised and nobody able to apparently do anything about it, it’s why the presidential campaign has become what it is.



RUSH: Tom in Sarasota, Florida.  Hello.

CALLER:  Great being able to speak with you.  Yeah, I was watching TV the other day and saw all those reporters tramping through a crime scene just a day after the San Bernardino shootings, and I wonder, you know, in tying that in to the whistleblower from Homeland Security —

RUSH:  No, I don’t… I know what you’re talking about.  The FBI cleared the crime scene after only two days, and the landlord turned it loose, and people were allowed to run through there. And we had a story from a former New York Police Department detective, NYPD detective, who just could not believe what he had seen.  He couldn’t believe that a crime scene would ever be allowed to be overrun like that. But what he also saw: No trace of any fingerprints having being taken. He didn’t see any fingerprint dust. He said there were loose documents and pieces of paper running around.

He said this was the wanton destruction of a crime scene that he’d just never seen before. He couldn’t understand it.  And what Tom here is wondering about is maybe this was purposefully done and coincides with the whistleblower.  I don’t think they’re linked.  But I think they all both are an indication of what we’re up against here.  It is clear, bottom line, we now know some of the whistleblower last night on Megyn Kelly — or just listening to Obama, we know. He does not want people to think that the people doing this are doing it.

And he believes he can convince us otherwise.  And it’s not just Obama.  This government goes to great lengths to deny what everybody can see.  “The religion of peace would never engage in activity like this. In mass murder? No. As a religion of peace, Islam, there is no terrorism in Islam.”  I don’t care why. Political correctness, I don’t care if there’s a

terrorism in Islam.”  I don’t care why. Political correctness, I don’t care if there’s a solidarity that we don’t understand or know.  What I do know is that none of this is working to fool or to calm the American people.  They’re not falling for this.  And the evidence is abundant all over the country.


Historic U.S. Senate Vote


Last week was historic in the U.S. Senate. Normally we do not report on our national legislation, but because this is so vital, we will go beyond the California border to give this information. The U.S. Senate passed to H.R. 3762 in an effort to redirect as much as 89 percent of federal funding away from Planned Parenthood. The bill provides that this money would go toward community health centers. The federal reconciliation bill narrowly escaped the U.S. Senate by a vote of 52-47.
The “Restoring Americans’ Health Care Freedom Reconciliation Act” would also repeal key provisions of the “Affordable Care Act,” popularly known as Obamacare. For some extended time now, our representatives have said, “If the President threatens to veto, why should we pass a measure?” CAE’s view is that if the President desires to veto such a measure, he can do that so that all America can see him violate the conscience of America by such an action. This bill, which was passed by both houses of congress does not take funds from health care, but puts that money where it does not fund abortions!


While I’m not a supporter of Trump, the one’s who would like to make him look like a fool or worst yet un-American. These folk  need to review a bit of history if they really believe we never have or should not ban certain groups of people when it comes to national security. Some of these folk are saying “Trump is just like Hitler, Or Jimmy Carter. Really, read on! This is a disgrace to both Trump and Carter.

December 8, 2015 Daniel Greenfield

Trump is a monster, a madman and a vile racist. He’s just like Hitler. Or Jimmy Carter. (These are the actual statements made by some on the left today.)

During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency.

Here’s Jimmy “Hitler” Carter saying it back in 1980.

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

Apparently barring people from a terrorist country is not against “our values” after all. It may even be “who we are”. Either that or Carter was a racist monster just like Trump.

Meanwhile here’s how the Iranian students in the US were treated.

Carter orders 50,000 Iranian students in US to report to immigration office with view to deporting those in violation of their visas. On 27 December 1979, US appeals court allows deportation of Iranian students found in violation.

In November 1979, the Attorney General had given all Iranian students one month to report to the local immigration office. Around 7,000 were found in violation of their visas. Around 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the US.

Meanwhile any Iranians entering the US were forced to undergo secondary screening.

Interestingly enough, Carter did this by invoking the Nationality Act of 1952. A law originally opposed by Democrats for its attempt to restrict Communist immigration to the United States.

“If this oasis of the world should be overrun, perverted, contaminated, or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished,” Senator McCarran said of the law. He was a Democrat.

Now unlike Muslims, Iranians were not necessarily supportive of Islamic terrorism. Many were and are opponents of it. Khomeini didn’t represent Iran as a country, but his Islamist allies. So Trump’s proposal is far more legitimate than Carter’s action. Carter targeted people by nationality. Trump’s proposal does so by ideology.

Classifying Iranians as a group is closer to racism than classifying people by a racist supremacist ideology that calls for the mass murder and enslavement of non-Muslims, as ISIS is doing today.

One of the neater subsets of the 1952 Act barred the entry of, “(11) Aliens who are polygamists or who practice polygamy or advocate the practice of polygamy.”

I wonder which creed this might apply to.

Maybe we can all calm down now long enough to have a rational conversation on the subject.

(Note: For a more in depth treatment of the subject, see my much longer post here.)

Islam Is Evil, but Islamaphobia Is Real

With the recent radical Islāmic terrorist attacks in both Paris and San Bernardino, and with what many consider to be unhealthy expressions of Islamaphobia, Dr. Michael Brown’s December, 9, 2015 post would seem to bring some balance between our fears and rush for revenge. I share his post with you below.

I believe that Islam is a false religion and Muhammad is a false prophet. I also believe that Islamophobia is real.

I believe that Islam is a false religion and Muhammad is a false prophet. I also believe that Islamophobia is real.

I believe that Islam is a false religion and Muhammad is a false prophet. I also believe that Islamophobia is real.

Let me explain why these two points are not mutually contradictory.

As a follower of Jesus who affirms the Bible as God’s Word, I do not believe Muhammad received revelation from God since the information he allegedly received contradicts fundamental truths of the Bible.

Muhammad’s revelations were therefore demonic, not angelic, and since the Quran denies that Jesus is the Son of God and denies that He died for our sins and rose from the dead, Islam is an anti-Christ religion and Muhammad is a false prophet.

Add to this the fact that almost 1.5 billion people have been deceived by Islam and that makes Islam the world’s largest false religion. In that sense, it is evil.

That doesn’t mean that Islam is devoid of lofty ethical principles and beautiful spiritual maxims (many Islāmic tenets are actually borrowed from Judaism).

It also doesn’t mean that Islam has not made significant, positive contributions in the last 1,400 years or that Muslims and Christians do not have many shared values.

It simply means that, to the extent Islam claims to have the full and final revelation, it is false, misleading and of the devil.

Lest these words strike you as overly harsh, remember that Islam claims to have the only true revelation; it claims that Abraham, Moses and Jesus were all Muslims; and it claims that the Bible, not the Quran, is corrupt.

Islam also claims emphatically that God has no Son and that belief in the Trinity is blasphemous.

So Islam has no problem stating that the fundamental beliefs of Christianity are false and deceptive. Why should Christians have a problem saying the same about Islam?

To the extent that Islam has been a religion of the sword, all the more is it evil—despite, I repeat, the many redeeming qualities of the Islāmic faith.

I’m sure my words will offend the “enlightened” and more “progressive” readers, but I’m not here to score points with them. I’m simply laying out the facts as I see them, making clear that my rejection of Islam is unequivocal.

In keeping with that, I applaud those courageous Christians through the centuries who have died rather than convert to Islam.

Yet, as much as I take issue with Islam as a whole and with radical Islam in particular, I also believe there is such a thing as Islamophobia, and it is alive and well in America.

I’m referring to an exaggerated, irrational fear of all Muslims, as if most (or all) of them are secretly loyal to ISIS, as if most (or all) of them want to overthrow America, as if most (or all) of them are terrorists at heart, and as if most (or all) of them will lie about anything as long as it advances their Islāmic cause.

This is hardly the reality, and as my colleague Dr. James White has pointed out after decades of studying Islam and debating top Muslim scholars, Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity is monolithic, with various Islāmic factions claiming to represent true Islam just as various Christian factions claim to represent true Christianity.

Accordingly, if we were to ask the question: “Which is the most authentic expression of Christianity?”, Catholics would answer, “That’s easy! We are the Mother Church, and Peter is the first Pope!”

Greek Orthodox would reply: “Not so! We have the direct link to the original New Testament faith!”

Evangelical Christians would protest: “That is hardly the case! We alone base our faith on the Bible,” and Messianic Jews would jump in and say: “Why talk about ‘Christianity’? That’s a later concept and we are the truest heirs of the apostles.”

Make no mistake about it: The gulf between some of these groups is vast.

It’s the same with Islam, even if you claim that radical Islam is the truest expression of Islam, the one traceable back to Muhammad himself.

I personally believe that there is a case to be made for this view, but it is not the only view.

Hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide (including countless thousands in America) do not espouse radical Islam, and they can point to strong Islāmic traditions to back their claims.

You might say, “Then they’re not true Muslims.”

Perhaps, but they believe they are true Muslims, they practice their faith sincerely, and they can quote from the Quran and Islāmic tradition to back their position.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is a devout Muslim, and in a major address to Islāmic scholars at Al-Azhar University on Jan. 1, 2015 he confronted jihad and called for strong reform, mincing no words.

His words represent the sentiments of millions of Muslims worldwide, Muslims who are appalled at the atrocities being committed in the name of their faith. And while there’s strong evidence that some Muslims in America celebrated on 9/11 (Donald Trump is apparently guilty of exaggeration, not fabrication), there’s no doubt that many (or even most) did not celebrate that tragic event.

In saying all this, I am not addressing questions of national security or immigration, which must be looked at carefully, nor am I minimizing the real and growing threat of the radicalization of Muslims in our midst.

I’m simply saying that there is a happy medium between the two extremes of a blind philo-Islamism, on the one hand, and full blown Islamophobia, on the other hand.

I’d encourage you to get to know some non-radical Muslims if you can and find out what they actually believe (without lecturing them based on a YouTube clip you saw). If you’re a follower of Jesus, seek to love your neighbor as yourself.

We can declare war on Islāmic terrorism and reject Islam as a false religion without fearing all Muslims.

Michael Brown is the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire and is the president of FIRE School of Ministry. His newest book is Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide. Connect with him on Facebook at AskDrBrown or on Twitter @drmichaellbrown.

Editorial Note: While I agree mostly with Dr. Brown on his warning against Islamaphobia and take issue with Trump’s over the top comments about Muslims. For the sake of balance there is a further  point to consider:

In the 14 years since Muslims killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11, this country has admitted another 1.5 million Muslims. Those on the left would say many of us are  xenophobic, bigoted racists if we don’t make it 2 million? Three million? When will we have enough? How many murdered Americans is an acceptable number before we can shut off the spigot of Muslim immigration? The issue should not be keeping all Muslim out, but how are they to be properly vetted before allowing any in. The gut wrenching fear on the part of Americans is that we have a government that is completely out of touch with anything Islamic and totally incapable of properly vetting Syrian Muslims.

Another writer makes this interesting point, the amazing thing is that no one (except the American people) wants any pause in Muslim immigration — even after more than a dozen Muslim terrorist attacks on our soil in the last 15 years.

A Clear Voice from Dallas

The First Baptist Church of Dallas at one time was the crown jewel of America’s largest denomination. While there were many pastors before, George W. Truett, Truett and his successor Dr. W.A. Criswell served that congregation consecutively for nearly 100 years.
Dr. Robert Jeffress is the current pastor of Dallas First Baptist. He is clear about what he believes and has a proper understanding of the separation of church and state. You may not agree with everything he says, but you will not be confused by what he says. He understands that words properly spoken are powerful. In our time of today’s culture, political correctness often stifles the truth and reason.

It my view we need more pastors, patriots, politicians and yes, peace-loving, yet silent Muslims, to speak out boldly and fearlessly like this, whether from the pulpit, pew, mosque or the White House. America is crying for leaders who have character and good judgment.
Like in Germany before WW II, if American pulpits continue to remain silent, the greatest threat to the western culture will only continue to grow. When thousands are loosing their lives at the hands of radical Muslims, we see this ideology as the second greatest moral issue of our time.

David Limbaugh, writing  in Human Events, Dec. 8, 2015 makes some rational and perceptive observations from a political commentator’s platform.

Obama keeps telling us not to give in to fear, but it’s not so much fear of terrorism that is haunting us as it is the realization that our commander in chief is doing nothing to combat the threat. His entire tenure in office has been a saga of a president usurping and abusing authority, yet the one clear constitutional duty he has — to keep America safe and secure — he abdicates with striking disgrace. So no, President Obama, we are not afraid that we are incapable of defeating the enemy; we are mortified that we have a leader who won’t lead and who has created a vacuum in the world and in the United States where our enemy can flourish.

President Obama, you underestimate the American people just as egregiously as you ignore the reality of our enemy. Please don’t insult us anymore with your lies that you have a strategy to defeat an enemy you won’t even acknowledge. No one with half a brain believes you anymore.

See Limbaugh’s entire article!

President Barack Obama, Apologist for Islam

Posted on “In The Line of Fire,” by Michael Brown

I do not believe that President Obama is a Muslim, but I have no doubt that he reveres Islam and that he is an apologist for Islam. Is there really any question about it?

I do not believe that President Obama is a Muslim, but I have no doubt that he reveres Islam and that he is an apologist for Islam. Is there really any question about it?

I posted comments similar to this on social media December 5th in the aftermath of the San Bernardino massacre before reading that Sen. Ted Cruz had commented that, “We have a president right now, who at times operates as an apologist for radical Islāmic terrorists.” It was also before I read Donald Trump’s commentt that, “Our president doesn’t want to use the term, ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism.’ There is something wrong with him that we don’t know about.”

There are many who believe that Barack Hussein Obama is, in fact, a Muslim, but I seriously doubt it. A real Muslim would not worship in a church building for a period of years, neglecting Islāmic prayer on a daily basis and abstaining from prayer on Fridays in a mosque, nor would a real Muslim publicly and consistently profess to be a Christian. That would be a denial of his faith.

At the same time, it is abundantly clear that President Obama reveres the Islāmic faith and often serves as an apologist for the religion of Muhammad.

Speaking in harmony with the president back in February, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson explained that, “The thing I hear from leaders in the Muslim community in this country is ISIL is attempting to hijack my religion.”

Yes, “To refer to ISIL as occupying any part of the Islamic theology is playing on a battlefield that they would like us to be on. I think that to call them some form of Islam gives the group more dignity than it deserves frankly. It is a terrorist organization.”

This echoes statements made repeatedly by President Obama, the clear implication being: If it’s violent, it’s not Islam since Islam is a religion of peace, despite Islam’s consistently violent 1,400 year history.

But the president’s defense of Islam goes beyond rejecting the idea that radical, violent, terroristic Islam can be Islāmic. It is also the positive way he speaks of Islam that is striking.

It was one thing for him to greet his listeners in Cairo in 2009 with the words, “assalaamu alaykum.” That could be written off as cultural sensitivity from a president who had been reared in an Islāmic country (Indonesia) and went to an Islāmic school.

But his words went far beyond the standard Muslim greeting. He also stated his belief that America and Islam “are not exclusive” but rather “overlap, and share common principles—principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” And when backing up one of his points, he noted that, “As the Holy Quran tells us, ‘Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.'”

The Holy Quran? Who speaks like this without reverence for the religion? Conversely, would a devout Muslim speak of the Holy Bible when Muslims believe that our Scriptures represent a corruption of the real Word of God as represented by the Quran?

The president also spoke of “civilization’s debt to Islam,” noting that “throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.” (Perhaps he means the kind of “religious tolerance and racial equality” we find today in countries like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran—including the equality of women?)

President Obama even alleged that “since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States,” referencing President John Adams’ statement with the signing of the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796 that “the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.”

Did he forget that 10 years earlier, in 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then ambassadors for America, were in Tripoli to combat the murderous Muslim pirates whose actions were backed by some Tripoli leaders in the name of Islam?

And was he unaware of the comments of John Quincy Adams, our sixth president, regarding Muhammad? Adams said that Muhammad “humbled [the Christian religion] to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust—to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature. … Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged.”

Perhaps our president has taken an airbrush to American-Islamic history and relationships?

In his Cairo speech, he also spoke of Islam being “revealed,” meaning, that he affirms that God did, in fact, give the Quran to Muhammad.

And so, despite the nuances of his Cairo speech and his criticism of certain expressions of “some Muslims,” he stood as not just a friend of Islam but an apologist for Islam, one who spoke with undeniable reverence for the faith of his father and the faith in which he grew up as a boy.

His statement, then, in 2012, that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” should not surprise us in the least, nor did his nuancing of that statement diminish its force in the least.

In President Obama, we do not simply have a leader who speaks respectfully of the world’s second largest religion, as President George W. Bush also did. We have a man who reveres Islam and is committed to defending it before the world, even when it potentially undermines national security and international order.

Can this really be denied?

Michael Brown is the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire and is the president of FIRE School of Ministry. His newest book is Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide. Connect with him on Facebook at AskDrBrown or on Twitter @drmichaellbrown.

Syrian Refugee Reports Coming Out of Europe

At the very top of th is report it is important to declare that fact checking this report has been difficult. I will continue in that effort and if I find what follows to be something other than the truth, I will immediately take it down. This message comes from Anna, a female physician in Munich, Germany, and it is her message to the wo old.

Thus far we have no substantive evidence to doubt this report. Merkel has ruined her country with her blind politically correct open arms policy. She has condemned her people to a horror show. The sovereignty and peace of Germany is being rapidly destroyed by the same government the people elected to make them safe.

French citizens are searching for guns to protect themselves but since they are illegal there are none to be found. It’s the same all over Europe, and if our current administration has its way, it will be the same in America. Our president continues to stiffen his neck and use every tragedy where guns are used to advance his idiotic agenda for gun confiscation as if that would stop the activity of terrorist.

Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and many on the left want to allow 100’s of thousands if not millions of Syrian immigrants into the United States, and without serious or competent vetting. We already have several hundred thousand here since 2009. A person looking at us from the outside might legitimately raise the question, “what did America learn from 911?” Our president would seem to suggest, more gun control.

Anna’s article below gives us a glimpse into America’s horrific future should the radical Islāmic terrorist be successful. Last week in San Bernardino we have seen but the tip of the iceberg of what may be in our future.

Anna, a Female Physician in Munich , Germany , sends a message to the World…

Yesterday, at the hospital we had a meeting about how the situation here and at the other Munich hospitals is unsustainable. Clinics cannot handle emergencies, so they are starting to send everything to the hospitals.

Many Muslims are refusing treatment by female staff and, we,women, are refusing to go among those ruffians, especially those from Africa . Relations between the staff and migrants are going from bad to worse. Since last weekend, migrants going to the hospitals must be accompanied by police with K-9 units.

Many migrants have AIDS, syphilis, open TB and many exotic diseases that we, in Europe , do not know how to treat. If they receive a prescription in the pharmacy, they learn they have to pay cash. This leads to unbelievable outbursts, especially when it is about drugs for the children. They abandon the children with pharmacy staff with the words:

“So, cure them here yourselves!”

So the police are not just guarding the clinics an hospitals, but also large pharmacies.

Truly we said openly: Where are all those who had welcomed in front of TV cameras with signs at train stations?! Yes, for now, the border has been closed, but a million of them are already here and we will definitely not be able to get rid of them.

Until now, the number of unemployed in Germany was 2.2 million. Now it will be at least 3.5 million. Most of these people are completely unemployable. A bare minimum of them have any education. What is more, their women usually do not work at all. I estimate that one in ten is pregnant. Hundreds of thousands of them have brought along infants and little kids under six, many emaciated and neglected. If this continues and German re-opens its borders, I’m going home to the Czech Republic.

Nobody can keep me here in this situation, not even double the salary than at home. I went to Germany, not to Africa or the Middle East .

Even the professor who heads our department told us how sad it makes him to see the cleaning woman, who for 800 Euros cleans every day for years, and then meets young men in the hallways who just wait with their hand outstretched, want everything for free, and when they don’t get it they throw a fit.

I really don’t need this! But I’m afraid that if I return, that at some point it will be the same in the Czech Republic . If the Germans, with their nature cannot handle this, there in Czechia it would be total chaos. Nobody who has not come in contact with them has no idea what kind of animals they are, especially the ones from Africa , and how Muslims act superior to our staff, regarding their religious accommodation.

For now, the local hospital staff has not come down with the diseases they brought here, but, with so many hundreds of patients every day – this is just a question of time.

In a hospital near the Rhine , migrants attacked the staff with knives after they had handed over an 8-month-old on the brink of death, which they had dragged across half of Europe for three months. The child died in two days, despite having received top care at one of the best pediatric clinics in Germany . The physician had to undergo surgery and two nurses are laid up in the ICU. Nobody has been punished.

The local press is forbidden to write about it, so we know about it through email. What would have happened to a German if he had stabbed a doctor and nurses with a knife? Or if he had flung his own syphilis-infected urine into a nurses face and so threatened her with infection? At a minimum he’d go straight to jail and later to court. With these people – so far, nothing has happened.

And so I ask, where are all those greeters and receivers from the train stations? Sitting pretty at home, enjoying their non-profits and looking forward to more trains and their next batch of cash from acting like greeters at the stations. If it were up to me I would round-up all these greeters and bring them here first to our hospital’s emergency ward, as attendants. Then, into one building with the migrants so they can look after them there themselves, without armed police, without police dogs who today are in every hospital here in Bavaria , and without medical help.