OldFox.info is a personal Knowledge Management blog for comment, criticism, parody, research, reference, text-searchable, personal clipboard. Comments, suggestions, contributions are invited.
email: oldfox-at-gmail.com
All content is copyright protected and permitted under the Fair Use Doctrine.
It’s been known for some time that Skype, the popular standalone peer-to-peer application specializing in providing video chat and voice call services was initially developed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), contrary to the official story regarding its origins. Marketed for its groundbreaking proprietary Internet telephony (VoIP) protocol, its real purpose was data mining and domestic surveillance.
In retrospect, this should not be surprising; in post-Edward Snowden America, even publications like The New York Times have reported on tech companies like Yahoo, Google, Facebook, YouTube, AOL, Apple and many others as having cooperated with an increasingly intrusive (and in some cases criminal) government in crafting its Internet surveillance programs.
How surprised Silicon Valley and the government must have been to discover that through social media, most people were willing to simply give away just the kind of information in which these entities were interested! And we probably don’t have to tell you that the current administration has stretched the limits of intrusion upon personal privacy to criminal proportions…
The data that has been collected through these and other means (such as illegal NSA domestic surveillance programs brought to light in recent years) has been used to harass and persecute private organizations, political organizations, businesses, and private citizens.
The bottom line is that your Skype conversations are anything but private; if you’ve heard names like Max Kelly, Project Chess, or Prism, you know this to be true. And since government agencies build networks and databases based upon nodes of activity and the online routines of groups of people, engaging in unsecure online communications is comparable to a person having indiscriminate, frequent, unprotected sex.
So… what’s a user to do?
Product Information
Knowing what we know today, would you have indiscriminate, unprotected sex? Probably not. So when you make a phone call, do you discuss private information of a personal nature, or business, or your investments, or your credit card info?
Did you know how easy it was for someone to listen in to your Skype calls?
Protect yourself with the only product that the world’s real whistleblowers believe in – You might know their names – Julian Assange of Wikileaks, former CIA agent and whistleblower extraordinaire Scott Bennett, and the guy with all the information – Edward Snowden. If these fellows want protection they go to one place in Canada (of all places) for it – The Pink Pagoda.
What is it?
The Pink Pagoda is proprietary to the Bethune Institute of Canada and China, and was developed by people in the fields of intelligence and communications. Can’t ask for more expertise than that…
Click image to see Breitbart article
Why is Canada a good place to hide stuff?
Because American law doesn’t apply. Your goodies are safe from the prying eyes of an ever-intrusive government which has already proven that it has no respect for your privacy.
How does it work?
Well, if we told you that, we’d have to kill you. But seriously – if we were to disclose that, it would compromise our ability to protect you and ensure your online privacy. The method is proprietary, but works much in the same way other online services to which customers subscribe work – with a little other technology thrown in to detect when you are engaged in digital voice or video communications on any of your devices.
What does it do for you?
It renders your video chat and voice calls private (nobody can listen in). Our main concentration and launch was to be America only, but people talk and the need for personal communications privacy is life or death for folks in some foreign lands. We had no idea our utility was going to strike a nerve such as it has. Our capacity at the moment is unlimited, so we are not surprised at the number of foreign inquiries we are receiving. Ask Edward Snowden if he feels that his life might be in jeopardy; the answer is obviously ‘yes,’ and you see where he is putting his trust.
How do I get it?
The Pink Pagoda is now offering access to its secure calling utility at an annual introductory rate of $100.00 in one payment, or via monthly payments of $10.00.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/26/usa.iraq
Do you remember the WH Correspondent's Dinner when W played a video of him looking around the WH and the Oval Office under papers, desks and in drawers comically saying, "Nope, no weapons of mass destruction in here!" That sequence was very bizarre, and I couldn't understand why he would hold himself up to ridicule for such a controversial joke. The media and the left DID excoriate his joke after the horrors of the war, but it looks now like that was part of the effort to keep the actual discoveries top secret.
https://youtu.be/GvliUuXjbL4
1.) The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons
"I felt more like a guinea pig than a wounded soldier,” said a former Army sergeant who suffered mustard burns in 2007 and was denied hospital treatment and medical evacuation to the United States despite requests from his commander.
Congress, too, was only partly informed, while troops and officers were instructed to be silent or give deceptive accounts of what they had found. “ 'Nothing of significance’ is what I was ordered to say,” said Jarrod Lampier, a recently retired Army major who was present for the largest chemical weapons discovery of the war: more than 2,400 nerve-agent rockets unearthed in 2006 at a former Republican Guard compound.
Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of “wounds that never happened” from “that stuff that didn’t exist.” The public, he said, was misled for a decade. “I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq,’ ” he said. “There were plenty.”
The yellowcake was the last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts, but years of final cleanup is ahead for Tuwaitha and other smaller sites.
The U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency plans to offer technical expertise.
Last month, a team of Iraqi nuclear experts completed training in the Ukrainian ghost town of Pripyat, which once housed the Chernobyl workers before the deadly meltdown in 1986, said an IAEA official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decontamination plan has not yet been publicly announced.
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.
Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before.He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling.
The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes.
All three men recall an awkward pause. Then Sergeant Duling gave an order: “Get the hell out.”
That led to more discoveries including one cache of 2600 rockets armed with chemical weapons. At the time, Jarrod Lampier, a now retired Army major said that he was ordered to make a statement downplaying the find:
“’Nothing of significance’ is what I was ordered to say.”
does anyone here realize that the WMD's were actually found in Iraq and that fact was kept Top Secret by the military until they were mostly all accounted for and transported out of the region to safety in Canada and other friendly sites?
"Today, Friday 31 July 2015, 9am CEST, WikiLeaks publishes "Target Tokyo", 35 Top Secret NSA targets in Japan including the Japanese cabinet and Japanese companies such as Mitsubishi, together with intercepts relating to US-Japan relations, trade negotiations and sensitive climate change strategy.
The list indicates that NSA spying on Japanese conglomerates, government officials, ministries and senior advisers extends back at least as far as the first administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, which lasted from September 2006 until September 2007. The telephone interception target list includes the switchboard for the Japanese Cabinet Office; the executive secretary to the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga; a line described as "Government VIP Line"; numerous officials within the Japanese Central Bank, including Governor Haruhiko Kuroda; the home phone number of at least one Central Bank official; numerous numbers within the Japanese Finance Ministry; the Japanese Minister for Economy, Trade and Industry Yoichi Miyazawa; the Natural Gas Division of Mitsubishi; and the Petroleum Division of Mitsui."
Today, 15 September 2014, WikiLeaks releases previously unseen copies of weaponised German surveillance malware used by intelligence agencies around the world to spy on journalists, political dissidents and others.
FinFisher (formerly part of the UK based Gamma Group International until late 2013) is a German company that produces and sells computer intrusion systems, software exploits and remote monitoring systems that are capable of intercepting communications and data from OS X, Windows and Linux computers as well as Android, iOS, BlackBerry, Symbian and Windows Mobile devices. FinFisher first came to public attention in December 2011 when WikiLeaks published documents detailing their products and business in the first SpyFiles release.
https://www.gammagroup.com/default.aspx
https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles3
"Documents in Spy Files #3 include sensitive sales brochures and presentations used to woo state intelligence agencies into buying mass surveillance services and technologies. Spy Files #3 also includes contracts and deployment documents, detailing specifics on how certain systems are installed and operated.
Internet spying technologies now being sold on the intelligence market include detecting encrypted and obfuscated internet usage such as Skype, BitTorrent, VPN, SSH and SSL. The documents reveal how contractors work with intelligence and policing agencies to obtain decryption keys.
The documents also detail bulk interception methods for voice, SMS, MMS, email, fax and satellite phone communications. The released documents also show intelligence contractors selling the ability to analyse web and mobile interceptions in real-time."
[The site IS safe. Google is warning because authorities have warned Google to make this material unavailable by posting a warning. If you click "more details" there is an open link to the material there, which is entirely safe, but which they want to scare you about. Doubtless, your visit to that link will be reported to the NSA.]
If you trust the USG, the ATF, the IRS, etc., you still might not like that customers of FinFisher could be ANY government anywhere in the world including Mongolia, Oman, Dubai, Estonia, Pakistan, Vietnam, and even Nigeria. Everyone in Nigeria is part of a criminal enterprise or two so your data could go into the hands of such crooks. If you think Nigeria wouldn't allow that to happen, ask yourself "how many arrests have ever been made in Nigeria for the infamous 419 Advance Fee Fraud racket.
link
"... this deal may represent the single worst policy outcome of all of Obama’s illegalities.
Mike Ramsey has set forth the case that the Iranian deal is unconstitutional both under the original meaning and under modern law. Under the original meaning, the Constitution’s provides the way to make major international agreements – through supermajority approval in the Senate, as set forth in Article II, Section 2. Moreover:
Making major international agreements in the way the text prescribes is not just an eighteenth-century relic; it is the usual course for the United States today (subject to some exceptions noted below). And the usual course is that if an agreement cannot get two-thirds approval in the Senate, there is no agreement.
What then are the possible justifications for it? First, the “deal is an executive agreement, done on the President’s independent authority.” But under the original meaning, there is a strong argument that executive agreements must relate to temporary and minor matters. Moreover, a similar result obtains under modern law:
the agreements made by prior Presidents under this power have been minor and typically limited to settlements of claims, arrangement of military affairs, diplomatic recognition, and other matters within the President’s military and recognition powers. No President has ever made a long-term arms control agreement on his own authority.
Second, “The deal is a nonbinding “political commitment” rather than a treaty. Ramsey claims such nonbinding actions are legitimate under both the original meaning and modern law. But the Iran deal:
doesn’t look like a nonbinding agreement. Iran appears to understand it as a binding agreement. And at least some of its terms appear to (purportedly) constrain U.S. action in the future, beyond the end of President Obama’s term. It’s likely that a vocal defense of the agreement as nonbinding would substantially undermine the deal.
Finally, Congress will approve the deal. While the original meaning does not allow a majority of each house of Congress to approve a treaty, in modern times sometimes Congress has done so. But Congress is very unlikely to approve the deal.
Not only is the deal unconstitutional, its unconstitutionality is essential to it occurring. If the President had to secure two thirds of the Senate or a majority of both houses, this deal almost certainly would not be approved.
Thus, once again, this President is taking illegal action to make an end run around the Congress to do things that are extremely problematic. But this time, I fear, the consequences of his action may be worse than in the other cases. The Iran deal is dangerous."
...
"Then again, has anyone ever articulated to the American people what socialism is as a governing philosophy – and that it has failed every time it’s tried? Perhaps the GOP nominees should stop with the circular firing squad and just do a simple comparative assessment between the ideals of a Constitutional Republic and a Progressive Socialist state.
So I figured this ol’ southern fella would give them a helping hand, with five facts about socialism you need to share with every Democrat you know.
1. First of all, socialists believe in wealth redistribution. This is the most threatening principle for a free market/free enterprise opportunity economy. It seeks to punish those who have worked hard to earn and achieve and believes that it is the job of the state to “level a playing field.” We hear the poll-tested marketed lexicon of fairness, fair share, economic patriotism, and other gimmick words that sound nice. My question is simple; when will progressive socialists share their iPhones, iPads, and all the other niceties they have?
Wealth redistribution does not work because it basically says the indomitable individual industrial entrepreneurial spirit does not (and should not) exist. And if anything has built this great nation to its impeccable level of exceptionalism, it has been individual industrialism. But if socialists have their way, success and achievement become targets of envy.
You know, this past weekend the USA Women’s Soccer team won their third World Cup — unprecedented. Carli Lloyd completed a first ever hat trick in men’s and women’s World Cup history. Every team from all the nations represented had the chance to win the World Cup, but one team was the champion. It was the most widely viewed sports event and we even watched in our home. It brought out all Americans because we like winning. Socialists don’t like winning, they like believing they can choose the winners. Socialists would have redistributed goals from Team USA to Japan in order to promote fairness. We don’t accept that on the soccer pitch — why do we accept that as a governing principle for our nation?
2. Socialists believe in nationalizing the economic production of a country, they do not believe in the private sector, the free marketplace of ideas. They believe in their control and I remember one Rep. Maxine Waters making a mistake and saying that we should nationalize the airlines — she caught herself.
When you consider legislation offered such as Obamacare, it’s about government having a preeminent role and competing against the private sector. You hear the liberal progressive socialists of the left talk about government investments — that is simply not possible. Government does not invest, it spends, and it spends other people’s money.
And the fallacy of socialism is that it works out REALLY well until you run out of other people’s money. If the government gets into the business of public sector growth and engagement in the marketplace, you end up with crony capitalism. You end up with a government that believes it can pick those winners and losers in the marketplace — Solyndra anyone?
What’s worse, the private sector cannot compete with government nationalization of production because government can just raise taxes to increase capital, or print money. Folks out in the free enterprise world cannot do that — thank God.
But just as we saw the shares of three healthcare companies skyrocket after the recent SCOTUS decision in King v Burwell — government should not be able to mandate to individual citizens that they MUST purchase a private sector commodity — inconsistent with the Commerce Clause — but very beneficial to the business that the government has chosen to coddle. In these past Obama years, we’ve seen an incredible intrusion of the federal government into the private sector — case in point, college student loans. It never ends up well — but that’s what Obama, Sanders, and presumably Hillary Clinton embrace.
3. Socialists believe in the creation and expansion of the welfare nanny-state. That is the purpose of wealth redistribution: the move away from the opportunity society to the dependency society. And all one has to do is look at the increase of Americans in poverty and on food stamps in these past six years. Consider the Great Society programs of Lyndon Johnson, especially the REALLY nutty idea of government providing checks to women who have children out of wedlock…with an interesting caveat, no man in the home.
So government removed Dad from the home and that especially affected the black community which 50 years ago had almost 77 percent two-parent households — today that number is barely 25 percent. Socialists come up with these GREAT ideas — mostly billed as free — but the truly intended consequences are detrimental for the society. As Wall Street Journal editorial board member Jason Riley pleads in his book, Please Stop Helping Us. But that is the issue, in that socialism is emotional in its core and these elitists truly believe they can feel better by helping someone — when actually they are promoting the soft bigotry of low expectations.
The dependency society that results from the expansion of the welfare state breeds a lack of drive, determination, and initiative. Socialists do not believe we need a safety net for those who slip off the ladder of success and achievement, which advocates for the individual to get back up and climb. Socialists believe in a hammock — which eventually dry rots.
4. Socialists actually believe in social utopianism — they call it social justice. What this means is that socialists believe it’s not the individual who has the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. It is a collective right granted by testate to guarantee happiness. Which is why socialists believe they must redistribute wealth, nationalize production, and give everyone a hammock.
Socialists do not believe in individual exceptionalism – as a matter of fact, “you did not build that” — someone else made it possible. And therefore justice is the sharing of what you THINK you have achieved – you can bet Hope Solo and Abby Wimbach are not about to give up that World Cup!
Socialists do not believe that if you work hard you can have a better life. They believe you must work hard in to spread it around — shared prosperity — because that is what makes a society happy – and makes them feel good, the essence of collectivism as the individual is lost.
Heck, it was MSNBC commentator Melissa Harris-Perry who even stated that parents do not have their own children — that they belong to all of us. Way wrong answer there, Mel.
I don’t need reparations. I just wanted to be a part of the opportunity society, not one based on classifying me as a victim needing standards to be altered to achieve justice for me. Socialists don’t believe individuals can be a victors — not on their own. The State exists to provide its version of justice — which is horribly unjust. Socialists like Julian Castro believe Fair Housing means socially engineering neighborhoods, and if you do not fit their definition — a utopian vision — you are in violation of being socially just.
5. Lastly, Socialists embrace the secular society. Why? Because faith has to be rooted in the State. Here in America, if God is removed from the public sphere, then who becomes the grantor — and subsequently the taker — of your unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
The recent SCOTUS decision on redefining marriage — well, it has resulted in a State punishing citizens for their religious beliefs. That is exactly why folks fled Europe for America in the first place — religious freedom and liberty. There is a reason why we sing God Bless America — and He has, but that is not what socialists prefer.
It was Karl Marx who termed religion as the “opiate of the masses.” Nah Karl, we just know you should never put your faith in man. The Founding Fathers invoked Divine Providence as they signed their 56 names to the Declaration of Independence. They realized King George III was a flawed human being and the divine rights theory was not the way towards individual liberty — freedom comes from the natural rights theory. And that is why our individual rights are granted from our Creator, God — not Obama, Sanders, or Clinton.
It is a time for choosing, America. This socialism stuff may sound enticing but let me end again with the words of Churchill: “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
I hate being miserable, and I certainly don’t want to share misery with anyone. That’s not how we roll in America folks!"
'A meeting between Frank Giustra and Kazakhstani nuclear holding company Kazatomprom was held in the Clintons’ home in Chappaqua, NY. Clinton officials and Giustra both denied such a meeting took place until a NYT reporter, Jo Becker, told them “Well, we already talked to the head of Kazatomprom who not only told us about the meeting, but actually has a picture of him and Bill in front of the home in Chappaqua that he proudly displayed on the office wall.”
'Only then did both parties concede that such a meeting had taken place, Becker tells Fox News.'
[Has the NYT decided not to coverup for the Clintons now? Maybe Obama through Valarie Jarrett and Suzy Rice is leaking info for revenge on the Clintons so he can avoid endorsing her for the Dem nomination? Then shoe in Lizzy Warren with the woman card and the Left credentials he wants.]
The troublesome truth, however, is that there is no apartheid in Israel. Black South African Reverend Kenneth Meshoe, founder and president of the African Christian Democratic Party and member of the South African parliament since 1994, indicates that under apartheid South Africa, blacks could not vote or hold high government positions; the races were strictly segregated at sports arenas, schools, hospitals, public transportation, public washrooms, benches in waiting rooms; and blacks had inferior medical care, hospitals, and education; they were forced to live in separate residential enclaves. Blacks also carried IDs to show their place of residence at all times, or they faced the penalty of being beaten or thrown in jail. In other words, blacks were criminalized for being black and severely restricted by state laws. Further, marriage was also outlawed between different races.
To brand Israel as an apartheid state, when none of these restrictions exist, is not only defamatory propaganda, but, according to Meshoe, trivializes the real suffering of blacks under apartheid. Meshoe has visited Israel many times, and says that he has never seen any evidence of apartheid. In his reference to the purely defensive so-called "apartheid" wall, Meshoe accurately calls it the "security" barrier. "It is the responsibility of every government to assure the safety of its citizens," he says.
While Sabeel states as its mission support of the "oppressed" Palestinians of the "indigenous Church," it never highlights the oppression and abuses of Palestinians by their own leadership, or the leadership of other countries hosting them such as Jordan or Lebanon. Tutu also disregards the abuses by Hamas, which uses its Palestinian citizens as human shields in its wars to obliterate Israel.
As the patron of Sabeel Center, Tutu also disregards the countless Christians being slaughtered in Muslim states; that black slaves are still being...
Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior
Published by: Dan Calabrese on Wednesday January 23rd, 2013link
"... Polk recalls Zeifman sharing with him at the time that he believed Hillary’s primary role was to report back to Burke Marshall any time the investigation was taking a turn that was not to the liking of the Kennedys.
'Jerry used to give the chapter and verse as to how Hillary was the mole into the committee works as to how things were going,' Polk said. 'And she’d be feeding information back to Burke Marshall, who, at least according to Jerry, was talking to the Kennedys. And when something was off track in the view of the Kennedys, Burke Marshall would call John Doar or something, and there would be a reconsideration of what they were talking about. Jerry used to tell me that this was Hillary’s primary function.'
Zeifman says he had another staff member get him Hillary’s phone records, which showed that she was calling Burke Marshall at least once a day, and often several times a day.
A final note about all this: I wrote my first column on this subject because, in the aftermath of Hillary being caught in her Bosnia fib, I came in contact with Jerry Zeifman and found his story compelling. Zeifman has been trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him. I thought it deserved an airing as a demonstration of how early in her career Hillary began engaging in self-serving, disingenuous conduct.
Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don’t really think that’s in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time – a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States."
The average American’s lack of awareness of the past has left our nation in an extremely vulnerable position. The multi-culturalism, pluralism, “diversity,” and political correctness that now blanket American culture mean that many are oblivious to and unconcerned about the threat that Islam poses to the American (and Christian) way of life. The Founders of the American Republic were not so dispossessed. They were well-studied in the ebb and flow of human history, and the international circumstances that could potentially impact America adversely. They, in fact, spoke openly and pointedly about the anti-American, anti-Christian nature of the religion of Islam.
Consider, for example, the writings of an early President of the United States, John Quincy Adams. Not only did Adams live during the founding era (born in 1767),
not only was his father a primary, quintessential Founder, but John Quincy was literally nurtured by his father in the vicissitudes and intricacies of the founding of the Republic. John Adams involved his son at an early age in his own activities and travels on behalf of the fledgling nation. John Quincy accompanied his father to France in 1778, became Secretary to the American Minister to Russia, was the Secretary to his father during peace negotiations that ended the American Revolution in 1783, served as U.S.foreign ambassador, both to the Netherlands and later to Portugal, under George Washington, to Prussia under his father’s presidency, and then to Russia and later to England under President James Madison. He served as a U.S.Senator, Secretary of State under President James Monroe, and then as the nation’s sixth President (1825-1829), and finally as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, where he was a staunch and fervent opponent of slavery.
After his presidency, but before his election to Congress in 1830, John Quincy penned several essays dealing with one of the many Russo-Turkish Wars. In these essays, we see a cogent, informed portrait of the threat that Islam has posed throughout world history:
In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it 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. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus (Blunt, 1830, 29:269, capitals in orig.).
Observe that Adams not only documents the violent nature of Islam, in contrast with the peaceful and benevolent thrust of Christianity, he further exposes the mistreatment of women inherent in Islamic doctrine, including the degrading practice of polygamy.
A few pages later, Adams again spotlights the coercive, violent nature of Islam, as well as the Muslim’s right to lie and deceive to advance Islam:
The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force (Blunt, 29:274).
No Christian would deny that many Christians in history have violated the precepts of Christ by mistreating others and even committing atrocities in the name of Christ. However, Adams rightly observes that one must go against Christian doctrine to do so. Not so with Islam—since violence is sanctioned:
The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war—it has softened the features of slavery—it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottomanlays it down as the foundation of his discourse (Blunt, 29:300, emp. added).
The Founders were forthright in their assessment of the nature and teachings of Islam and the Quran. Americans and their political leaders would do well to take a sober look at history. To fail to do so will be catastrophic.
The above article was originally published at Apologetics Press and dis reprinted by permission.
Knowing what we know today, would you have indiscriminate, unprotected sex? Probably not. So when you make a phone call, do you discuss private information of a personal nature, or business, or your investments, or your credit card info?
not only was his father a primary, quintessential Founder, but John Quincy was literally nurtured by his father in the vicissitudes and intricacies of the founding of the Republic. John Adams involved his son at an early age in his own activities and travels on behalf of the fledgling nation. John Quincy accompanied his father to France in 1778, became Secretary to the American Minister to Russia, was the Secretary to his father during peace negotiations that ended the American Revolution in 1783, served as U.S.foreign ambassador, both to the Netherlands and later to Portugal, under George Washington, to Prussia under his father’s presidency, and then to Russia and later to England under President James Madison. He served as a U.S.Senator, Secretary of State under President James Monroe, and then as the nation’s sixth President (1825-1829), and finally as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, where he was a staunch and fervent opponent of slavery.
Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus (Blunt, 1830, 29:269, capitals in orig.).