Safest place to be in a terrorist attack

This is copied from Dave Hodges' Common Sense Show blog, entitled "The Safest Place to Be in a Terrorist Attack is Next to President Obama".  I think the key paragraphs are worth saving and pondering:

It is so clear that if terrorists wanted to assassinate political figures, such as a President, they could and they would. If John Hinckley can get close enough to shoot President Reagan, then a “Muhammad Atta” should be able to get even close enough to President Obama. Then why don’t they? The answer is simple, all terrorism is state sponsored terrorism and terrorists are not going to bite the hand that feeds them. And who controls the state? The elite who are using these tools of political manipulation which will perpetuate their agenda. And what is their agenda? The agenda of the NWO is clear and unmistakable. They seek to erase all national boundaries, as evidenced by the hordes of immigrants which are destabilizing the so-called Western democracies.
Through fear mongering, perpetuated by a series of so-called terror attacks, the NWO is conditioning the sheeple to accept a brutal, totalitarian dictatorship which will include the elimination of all individual civil liberties and the NWO is using Muslims to accomplish this goal.

 

Response to Nancy Armour's editorial in USA Today sports page

Ms. Armour,

I read with interest your commentary on Aaron Rodgers' "Calling out prejudiced fan".  While it was totally inappropriate for that fan to make his vulgar comment during that moment of silence, and Mr. Rodgers was correct in rebuking him, both his comments afterward and yours revealed a lack of understanding of the true nature of Islam, and of the situation we face because of our lack of understanding.

First of all, you make a false comparison between the radical Islamists and pseudo-Christian cultists:  The latter in no way reflect the teachings of the Bible or the example of their Founder, while the former much more precisely follow the precepts of the Quran than do the so-called "moderate" muslims.

Secondly, it's instructive to notice the reaction of the two groups to atrocities committed in the names of their respective religions:  In the case of evil done in the name of Christ, Christians are very quick and vocal to condemn any and all such acts.  What has been the response of the Muslim community to the bombings, beheadings, shootings, kidnappings, rapes, and other heinous deeds done in the name of Islam and of the Prophet?**Crickets**.

Perhaps the silence is due to fear.  That's VERY instructive, is it not?  Perhaps it's due to embarassment, the embarassment of holding a position that's not orthodox, and voicing that position would only show them up for the apostates they are.  And perhaps, just perhaps, it's because they are in agreement with the "extremists".

What do you think?  Which is it?

Remember, the Quran is very specific regarding the necessity of spreading Islam by the sword and of prescribed treatment of those outside the "House of Islam".

Islam, when it is in power, gives "infidels" (that's you and me) three options:  1) Convert to Islam; 2) pay a special tax and accept second-class citizen status (for Christians and Jews only); and 3) death.  There is, of course, a fourth option:  Flee for your life.

A personal anecdote may be instructive.  My wife and I have a Kurdish friend who came to the US in 1996.  As he became exposed to Christianity and compared it with the Islam he grew up with, he made this observation:  "If you take Islam to its logical conclusion, you've got to kill everyone who won't submit.  If you take Christianity to its logical conclusion, Christ died for us."  This, from an insider, Ms. Armour.

What the fan did was boorish.  What Mr. Rodgers did was the correct response to boorish behavior, but for wrong (but politically correct) reasons.  What you wrote was well-crafted and correct according to the received "wisdom" of our society, but inaccurate.
 

Thank you for your attention.

David J. Smith