Oh, and don't forget his 2004 masterpiece . . .
Posted on 02/12/2012 11:31:30 AM PST by EveningStar
[Editor's note: The article below is written by Eric Allen Bell, a filmmaker who was recently banned from blogging at the “Daily Kos” because he wrote three articles that ran afoul of the mindset there, specifically naming “Loonwatch.com” as a “terrorist spin control network.” This article first appeared in our Feb 7 issue and we have decided to rerun it due to the massive interest and reaction it received. Don't miss Eric Bell on Frontpage's television program, The Glazov Gang, which we will air in our Monday, Feb. 13 edition.]
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Good read
ping
Aha! The nexus of a solution for the sedition of Islam in the US.
Where do I stand on Islam? Let’s look at its founder – a man who raped a 9 year old girl, a slave owner, a leader who ordered people to be tortured, for adulterers to be stoned, for countless nonbelievers to be beheaded, a killer, a warmonger who spread his “religion of peace” by the sword, a man who suffered from hallucinations of voices telling him to do violent things, a tyrant, a homicidal maniac perhaps the equivalent of 100,000 Osama Bin Ladens. And this sadistic lunatic is considered to be the “ideal man” in Islam. What more needs to be said about Islam than that?
He gets it now.
Great article.
A very good read. It’s always hard for a liberal to discover that he’s wrong. I hope he stays in touch with David Horowitz & maybe David can bring him the rest of the way into the light.
For later
Good luck to this guy. Liberals are vicious to those that start to think for themselves, and they have a near monopoly on the film industry. I hope he keeps looking and learning.
.
Ping.
.
Yes, and yes and yes etc. But what surprises me is how long it took for this guy to wake up.
To my knowledge, Horowitz still hasn't figured out the damage done by Cultural Marxism's attack on the nuclear family. He does not ascribe to socon values, is pro-gay rights, and light on premarital sex, adultery, and divorce. He apparently does not understand how a broken family forces parents to work, thus forcing socialized education of children in the "blessings" of political control of the means of production. His "solution" is to attain "balance" in the indoctrination of children by means of vouchers and balanced hiring of professors. Good luck with that David.
If he was truly anti-communist, he would oppose the whole programme.
By way of clear illustration of the problem, suppose that all Catholic churches and cathedrals in the U.S. were funded by the Vatican. What would be the permanent result?
Permanent outrage, complete with destruction and unrelenting physical attacks, as well as verbal and legislative attempts to prevent the attempted subversion of national identity and the foundations of the rule of law.
If islam existed in its contemporary form and manifestation when our nation was founded, "freedom of religion" would have been much more tightly and carefuly circumscribed, and islam would not qualify as a "religion." The historical justification for this conclusion is clear and extensively recorded in the history of the last 600 years, for anyone who cares to seek it.
Currently, all mosques, madrassas, and megamosques in the U.S. are funded either directly by Saudi Arabia, or indirectly by millionaire muslim middlemen in free western countries such as Ireland.
Currently the origin of funding for "religious" structures is not required by custom or by law. Neither is the definition of "religion."
Until these mega-loopholes are eliminated, islam can build a ten acre structure serving as an armory/place of worship, and theoretically immune to the laws that apply to every other domestic and imported terror group.
Why is that still the case?
By way of clear illustration of the problem, suppose that all Catholic churches and cathedrals in the U.S. were funded by the Vatican. What would be the permanent result?
Permanent outrage, complete with destruction and unrelenting physical attacks, as well as verbal and legislative attempts to prevent the attempted subversion of national identity and the foundations of the rule of law.
If islam existed in its contemporary form and manifestation when our nation was founded, "freedom of religion" would have been much more tightly and carefuly circumscribed, and islam would not qualify as a "religion." The historical justification for this conclusion is clear and extensively recorded in the history of the last 600 years, for anyone who cares to seek it.
Currently, all mosques, madrassas, and megamosques in the U.S. are funded either directly by Saudi Arabia, or indirectly by millionaire muslim middlemen in free western countries such as Ireland.
Currently the origin of funding for "religious" structures is not required by custom or by law. Neither is the definition of "religion."
Until these mega-loopholes are eliminated, islam can build a ten acre structure serving as an armory/place of worship, and theoretically immune to the laws that apply to every other domestic and imported terror group.
Why is that still the case?
Oh, and don't forget his 2004 masterpiece . . .
I have conversed (by email) with David Horowitz for over ten years. He is committed to religious liberty and opposes Marxism in general (which is why he was there). He would oppose an imposed religion, whether Islam or Judaism.
However, as I have read his writings for over a decade (and before he started FrontPage Magazine), I would say that he is neither seriously religious nor does he understand the original design of our Constitution as PRESERVING the rights of the States to institute an establishment of religion should the people so choose. The reason is simple: there really are civil laws mandated in the Bible, with penalties for crimes, a mandated Sabbath, instructions for civil administration, etc. ALL of which would effect State and local laws. For the people truly to have the liberty to live as their religions dictate, they would have to be free to institute such local laws. Horowitz would oppose that as an imposition on everybody else, just as most people would today.
The Founders saw Federalism as a solution to that problem, where people could institute local laws to serve their preferences. If a minority didn't prefer a religious administration they could simply move to where the local laws befitted their secular preferences. As we have all seen, the system has been used to enact secular uniformity by force. There is nowhere today a person can move and live where local laws meet literal Biblical demands, particularly in Lev. 25. We thus have no liberty to witness or perfect a working model of Judeo-Christian administration. There are consequences you know.
If I built a time machine, going back to kill that idiot Muhammad would top my list of things to do, places to go and people to off.
The Liberal-Muzzie Alliance reminds me of the Hitler-Stalin Pact.... you never know which one will turn on the other first.
Horowitz stands against islam. Every day.
You know where to look for perfection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.