OlDawg

Obviously didn’t read what Martin Luther, John Quincy Adams, or Winston Churchill had to say about the so-called ‘religion of peace.’ While I don’t paint all Muslims with the same brush, the belief system itself is built on violence, slavery, and lies. Of course, Obama hadn’t read their thoughts either when he defended the belief system at the U.N. in 2012, and he had the ‘benefit’ of 9/11 as proof. The Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 didn’t change his mind either.

I sometimes wonder if the powers that be make sure we have to choose from 80 year olds who—understandably—aren’t at the top of their mental capacity, or other easily controlled ‘faces.’ I remember asking my dad before he passed at 87–and still active and President of the Board of a sizeable credit union—if he thought an 80 year old could still handle the tasks required of a POTUS. His answer was quick. “No way in heck.” I know there’s no upper age limit. But, I wonder if there should be…

This municipality misinterpreted the SCOTUS rulings on animal sacrifice, and capitulated to fear & a large Muslim contingent in their area. SCOTUS didn’t say animal sacrifice was legal in all cases. They ruled that religious activities—including animal sacrifice—couldn’t be prohibited unless it was a general rule that applied to everyone. If the city had a general ordinance that said “no killing of any animal by private, non-licensed professionals, or city sanctioned animal shelters unless there is inherent danger to life or health, and officials must be timely notified…”, or something along those lines, this wouldn’t be allowed. SCOTUS was attempting to protect religious liberty to the highest standard. This municipality just folded. Sad. Funny this is allowed, but California and other places were allowed to shutter churches during Covid, and deprive people of their freedom of religious assembly in the name of a health concern. Animal sacrifice and disposal could also be a health concern…

The U.S. Constitution and Sharia Law John Quincy Adams' 136-page series of essays on Islam displayed a clear understanding of the threat facing America then - and now, especially from the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad and dhimmitude. Regarding these two topics, Adams states: "...[Mohammed] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind.... The precept of the Quran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that [Mohammed] is the prophet of God. "The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute. As the essential principle of [Mohammed's] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated. "The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force. "This appeal to the natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Quran. The document [the Quran] does not attempt to disguise it, nor even pretend that the enmity of those whom it styles the infidels, is any other than the necessary consequence of the hatred borne by the Mussulmen to them - the paragraph itself, is a forcible example of the contrasted character of the two religions. "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 Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse." In conclusion, it is clear from the writings of several of our earliest presidents, as well as the texts of the nation's founding documents, that American principles are not at odds with - and imperiled by - some "radical" or "extreme" version of Islam. Rather, it is the mainstream doctrine of shariah that constitutes the threat to the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it enshrines. That incompatibility has several practical implications: For one thing, the shariah legal code cannot be insinuated into America - even through stealthy means or democratic processes - without violating the Constitution's Article VI Supremacy Clause, which requires that the Constitution "shall be the supreme Law of the land." Even more reprehensible is the willingness of some among America's elites, and it would appear even a subset of its elected leaders, to accede to these groups' increasingly insistent contention that shariah is compatible with the U.S. Constitution. In fact, based on shariah's tenets, its core attributes - especially its intolerance of other faiths and disfavored populations and its bid for supremacy over all other legal or political systems, there can be no confusion on this score: As the Framers fully understood, shariah is an enemy of the United States Constitution. The two are incompatible. [Hidden Content] (Regardless of thoughts about NCCS, Adams' words are Adams' words.)

Religious freedom is freedom from an imposed religion by the government. You know this. Change the mosque to a giant Church of Satan, with all that entails. How would you feel about it then? I do find it interesting that there is a big issue with Muslim only communities while there is no negative discussion around Homestead Heritage near Waco. Of course, the people of Homestead Heritage don’t have a belief system that directly conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, and/or our laws. So, there’s that.

With all the gun shows at the Pasadena Convention Center--which is less than a mile from this land--it would be a fantastic location for a gun range. La Porte population is less than 40,000. La Porte firearm population is probably around 100,000. I really don't know how I feel about this. I'm all for freedom of religion. But, Islam typically turns into Islamism--which is an entirely different matter. I just know there's not a large Muslim population here right now. I assume they're wanting to attract more people of their beliefs to the area for some reason, and I wouldn't think it would be strictly to practice their beliefs in private.

No. I did not. But, almost twice as many people have signed a Change.org petition against it than the proposed capacity. Petition has over 1900 signatures now. Shows how involved I really am in politics. I had no clue. lol

Getting heated in La Porte. I wasn’t aware of any of this until a couple of days ago. I have no idea why they chose La Porte when there’s not a large Muslim presence in the area. Sure is close to one of the largest ports in the country though. [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content]

I’ve made my thoughts on this conflict perfectly clear. I won’t rehash for an attempted deflection. My opinion is the biggest threats to this country are the debt and the rise/acceptance of Socialism and Communism.

Fox News poll shows Trump approval low as Democrats lead House ballot | Fox News

We have multiple similar arrangements, and have for a long time. She’s going to keep running her uneducated mouth and wind up getting a Socialist elected. The perfect storm that helped socialist politics gain traction | Fox Business

Search for your current Wet Bulb Temperature: [Hidden Content]

[Hidden Content]

They can. If people just stick to the details of policy, or events. No one's going to change anyone's mind here. But, having information--from either someone else's personal experience/knowledge, or a vetted source--is never a bad thing. JMHO

Only 41 days sounds better. 😁