Polygamy Will be Next (And Much More)

h/t MK





http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/03/polygamy-will-be-next-and-much-more/



Polygamy Will be Next (And Much More)

Posted 4 Hours Ago by Gary DeMar filed under Christianity, Culture, Family, Feminism, Homosexuality, Liberalism, Marriage, Morality, Poverty, Religion

There is nothing in our current legal system or  national moral climate that will stop polygamy from becoming the next liberal cause:

“Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would jettison the rationale and logic behind prohibitions on polygamous marriages, according to several friend-of-the court briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.

“‘Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships,’ reads one of the briefs, filed by the Christian legal group Liberty Counsel. ‘In fact, every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for them as well.’”

The Netherlands is a microcosm of how the homosexual community hoodwinked this once-Christian nation into accepting a perversion. A former Dutch Member of Parliament “has admitted that polygamous marriage is the ‘next logical step’ following the introduction of same-sex marriages in the Netherlands.”
Serial polygamy is already accepted in America. People get married and divorced numerous times with little regard for marriage as a covenant bond. Hollywood types change wives like some people change shoes. Others don’t get married but live together, have children out of wedlock, and few people bat an eye.
Watch the Home and Garden Channel (HGTV) and note how many times non-married couples are living together and the number of homosexual couples that are featured.
In some respects, America is becoming a third-world nation. The cultural mores that made America great are quickly disappearing. Providentially there is a Christian and conservative counter culture that is quietly replacing the disintegrating secular worldview.
Abortion kills off future generations. Homosexuality is a sterile worldview. The only way homosexuality can flourish is by recruitment. I believe a good case can be made that homosexuality is the result of failed families, and that mostly means failed fathers.
The State has become the father figure to many young people. This is especially true in the Black community. The Welfare State made it financially easy for fathers to abandon their children and for the State to become a substitute parent.

Rulers have ever been tempted to play the role of father to their people. . . . When the provision of paternal security replaces the provision of justice as the function of the state, the state stops providing justice. . . . Those who are concerned about the chaos into which the criminal justice system has fallen should consider what the state’s function has become. Because the state can only be a bad imitation of a father, as a dancing bear act is of a ballerina, the protection of this Leviathan of a father turns out to be a bear hug.^[1]

There’s something going on in the black community known as the Down Low.

“Ten years ago, the New York Times reported on a growing underground subculture in the black community known as Down Low, comprised largely of men who secretly engage in homosexual activity while living ‘straight’ lives in public.”

Why is this happening? Because a number of black men are looking for father figures, and they believe they can find it in other men.
The people who have gotten on the “gay train” don’t realize what it’s dragging behind it.

The Case for the Real Jesus

David Limbaugh 11 Sep 2012 Team Romney Must Sharpen Its Message The November elections are a Republican landslide begging to materialize, but will the GOP make it happen? I … Read More. 7 Sep 2012 Twilight Zone Week The Democratic National Convention is an elaborate effort to sanitize a failed record that cannot be rehabilitated,… Read More. 31 Aug 2012 The Ryan Vision: Let's Get This Done The Democrats and their mainstream media cheering section can huff and puff at Paul Ryan's convention speech, …Read More.

  

 

It's interesting that many who dismiss the Bible and certain essential Christian claims — saying they believe there is scant evidence to support them — are able to readily embrace rival belief systems and their texts, which are far less reliable.

Former atheist Lee Strobel has used his formidable journalistic and legal background as legal editor of the Chicago Tribune to research and write a number of bestselling books in defense of the Christian faith. His recently released "The Case for the Real Jesus" goes beyond the traditional apologetic to address some of the current attacks on the identity of Jesus Christ, typified by the heretical storyline in the popular The Da Vinci Code.

I strongly recommend this book this Christmas season because it compellingly debunks many of the most recent mythical challenges to Christianity. It is perfect for believers whose perceived spiritual security could be threatened by the crop of fantastic notions now circulating and for nonbelievers who are open to the evidence.

Strobel correctly observes that ideas have consequences and, particularly, what we believe about Jesus will have profound consequences for us individually. Since modern theories directly attack what Christians believe about the very identity of Jesus, Strobel wanted to examine their validity to determine whether the Christian idea of Christ could survive rigorous inquiry.

Having begun as a smug nonbeliever and converting only after subjecting Christianity's historical and doctrinal claims to scrupulous investigation, Strobel was unafraid to put his faith to the test once again. Are we, believers and nonbelievers alike, similarly unafraid?

Strobel asks, "Are you willing to set aside your preconceptions and let the evidence take you wherever it will? … I had to honestly ask myself that question when I was an atheist and decided to investigate the identity of Jesus. And more recently, this time as a Christian, I had to face that issue squarely once again when I was confronted by six potent challenges that could undermine everything I had come to believe about him."

Strobel points out that while the heretical ideas about Jesus achieved a new level of prominence in The Da Vinci Code, they have been around for years and have even been circulated widely in modern times preceding that story.

In the 1990s, Christian debunkers received a boost from a group of liberal Christian scholars known as the "Jesus Seminar." These professors examined the words and deeds of Jesus and, using colored beads to cast their votes, pronounced that fewer than 20 percent of the statements attributed to Jesus in the Bible were actually uttered by him.

What made the Jesus Seminar unique, says Strobel, was not its liberal "scholarship" purporting to discredit Biblical accounts of Jesus but that it bypassed the usual academic channels to enthusiastically make its findings public.

AD FEEDBACK

In case you haven't noticed, the recent "evangelistic" fervor against Christianity didn't begin with Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. They have just built on what the Jesus Seminar proselytizing debunkers started.

Strobel says that six major challenges are leaving many Christians scratching their heads and confusing seekers looking for the truth about Christ. He began his research on these challenges conceding to himself that if any were true, they "could change everything" about his beliefs. But, "for the sake of my own intellectual integrity, I needed answers." He then proceeded to investigate, by studying the evidence and interviewing the premiere scholars on each of these issues:

1. Scholars are uncovering a radically different Jesus in ancient documents just as credible as the Four Gospels, 2. The Bible's portrait of Jesus can't be trusted because the Church tampered with the text, 3. New explanations have refuted Jesus' resurrection, 4. Christianity's beliefs about Jesus were copied from pagan religions, 5. Jesus was an imposter who failed to fulfill the messianic prophecies, and 6. People should be free to pick and choose what to believe about Jesus.

I love Lee Strobel's ministry, maybe in large part because I began my spiritual journey as quite the skeptic as well, but also because I believe he has the unique skills, intellectual curiosity and personal integrity that position him to stand on the front lines defending Christ against today's puffed-up assailants.

Will you take Strobel's challenge and read the results of his study? As he says, "In the end, we'll discover together whether the Jesus of historic Christianity manages to emerge intact from the crucible of twenty-first-century skepticism."

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was just released in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.davidlimbaugh.com. And to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-limbaugh/the-case-for-the-real-jesus.html

The Party of atheists, homosexuals, abortionists, and maahslimes

September 5, 2012 by Gary DeMar

Filed under 2012 Election, Abortion, Christianity, Economics, Islam, Morality, Politics, Racism

4

21

Former President Bill Clinton’s Democratic convention speech includes this line: “The most important question is, what kind of country do you want to live in?” Good question

It’s hard for me to believe that the majority of Americans want to live in a country where there is no God except the State, homosexual marriage is just like heterosexual marriage, abortion is a form of birth control, and Islam is on an equal footing with America’s Christian heritage.

The majority of Americans believe in God, and yet the Democrats removed any mention of Him from their platform. It’s not that it was an oversight; it was a conscious effort since “God-given potential” was in the 2008 platform. When an attempt was made by Ted Strickland (D-OH) to reintroduce God, all hell broke loose. He was booed:

Democrats have changed their convention platform to add a mention of God and declare that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The move came after criticism from Republicans. Many in the audience booed after the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, ruled that the amendments had been approved despite the fact that a large group of delegates objected.

 Notice that the criticism didn’t come from the Democrats.

The Democrat leadership ramrodded the new language over vociferous opposition. Keep in mind that a number of speakers mentioned God. This only goes to show that the Democrat convention is more theater than reality. The convention is designed to play to the ignorance of the voting population. They say one thing in public to get votes but do something else legislatively. Their voting public doesn’t care as long as the checks, condoms, and birth control pills keep coming.

Since every state that has voted on homosexual marriage defeated the measure — 31 states as of this writing – it’s a wonder that the Democrats see homosexual marriage as a winning issue. More than 8 percent of the delegates at the convention are homosexuals (more than 500 out and proud sexually incongruous delegates) — eight times the homosexual population in America.

And while God was put out of the Democrat party platform, homosexual marriage was put in. The Democrats became the first major U.S. political party to endorse gay marriage, and this happened in a state where voters approved a state constitutional referendum limiting marriage to heterosexuals.

The Democrats have always been the Abortion Party. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Democrats change their party identification to “Abortionists” in the future. It’s all they can talk about. Of course, if the Democrats keep supporting pre-born child killing, there won’t be an opposition party in the future.

What’s really evil about Democrat support for abortion is how it’s affecting the black community. While 95 percent of blacks vote for Democrats, a higher percentage of blacks get abortions. It’s been described as “black genocide.” What fools they are.

What’s not getting a lot of attention is the number of Muslim delegates at the Democrat National Convention. There are more than 100, “up from 43 Muslim and Arab-American delegates at the 2008 Democratic convention, and 25 at the 2004 convention.”

“‘The more than doubling of Muslim delegates at this year’s Democratic National Convention is a direct result of their hard work and grassroots organizing within the Democratic Party,’ said CAIR Government Affairs Coordinator Robert McCaw. ‘It is also a sign of the American Muslim community’s growing civic engagement and acceptance in the Democratic Party.’”

I’m not sure what kind of Muslims these are considering the Democrat Party platform’s non-support of God and the support of homosexual marriage and abortion on demand. The only think I can think of is that the Muslims are biding their time. One day they will be running the Democrat Party.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/09/the-party-of-atheists-homosexuals-abortionists-and-muslims/

http://visiontoamerica.com/12017/party-of-atheists-homosexuals-abortionists-and-muslims/

National Atheist Party Convention Canceled Due to Lack of Funding - Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

August 31, 2012 by Michael Minkoff

14

The National Atheist Party was poised for its big break into the public consciousness. The Primordial Punch was brewed. The Darwinian Pigs-in-a-Blanket were all cooked. The Religion-Free Party Favors were all snuggled into their agnostically-sealed swag bags. The party was about to become a political force through their secular summit. And then the whole thing got canceled because of a lack of funding. Too bad. I don’t know if that faith repellant they ordered is returnable. Comments from the party president, Troy Boyle, are kind of sad:

After this year’s amazing Reason Rally, and flush with our successful recruiting and a spike in donations, we decided to hold our own secular event. NAPCON 2012 was supposed to be our biggest and best public event; our chance to show the U.S. that we could fund and organize a large, noteworthy and impressive “Secular Summit” that would attract media buzz and even more interested members and donations. The reality is that we can’t. The donations simply aren’t there and if we went ahead with the event as planned, it would bankrupt us.

This just goes to show, again, that the majority of Americans just don’t buy into atheist dogma. We might purchase The God Delusion because it’s controversial and we want to know what new insult Dawkins has crafted for us, but atheists couldn’t have alone made the book a bestseller. I fail to see why this small group has such a profound influence on public policy. “You can’t have the Ten Commandments there.” No. That might offend the small number of American atheists who sure take “non-existent” things a whole lot more seriously than the rest of us do.

I used to annoy the Atheist Club members that would set up on the walkway at Georgia Tech by asking them if they would like to join my Anti-Mermaid Club. They weren’t amused. I just thought it was kind of silly for them to create an entire philosophical system on the basis of something not existing. Yep. Sounds pretty bankrupt to me.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/08/national-atheist-party-convention-canceled-due-to-lack-of-funding/

Orrin Hatch on mormonism - he says they are Christian, but they are not

By Jonathan Karl, Richard Coolidge & Sherisse Pham | Power Players – 5 hrs ago

• 1
• Email
• Print

Spinners and Winners

Sen. Orrin Hatch had to fight for his political life this year, when he was nearly beaten in the Republican primary in his home state of Utah. Spinners and Winners caught up with Hatch on the convention floor in Tampa, where the long-time senator credited his background for his primary victory. Like many of the personal stories being told at the convention this week, Hatch said he comes from humble roots -- an experience that prepared him for tough political battles like the one he fought.

"I'm a tough old bird and everybody knows it. I'm a nice person but I'm tough," said Hatch. "And I've come up the hard way. I remember when we didn't have enough to eat except for the little half-acre garden that we planted."

But Romney doesn't share that story, and his background has made it difficult for some voters to relate to him. Hatch says Romney needs to embrace his success.

"Just say, 'Yes I've been very fortunate but I've earned every dime I've ever made and I'm successful because of a lot of breaks in life but on the other hand, a lot of hard work I've had in life too.' "

The senator, a fellow Mormon, also said Romney's time abroad as a missionary was, in its own way, a hardship.

"He served a mission for his church over in France, a very difficult mission by the way where people come up to you and say, 'I'm an atheist and I'm a Catholic.' But he learned to love people, he learned to work with people, he learned to serve, and that's what you get from those kind of experiences."

Romney's faith could be a potentially difficult issue for voters unfamiliar with Mormonism, but Hatch seems to want to lay those concerns to rest.

"If you look at his church background, he voluntarily gave a good deal of his life to help others without any kind of compensation, without any kind of fanfare, behind the scenes in most cases and frankly, he has always lived a real Christian life," says Hatch.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/sen-hatch-mitt-romney-advice-one-mormon-republican-130407579.html

Jesus Healed a Pedophile’s Lover?

Ugust 14, 2012 by Michael Minkoff

21

A friend, Justus Stout, wrote this article. I thought it was of interest, so I am posting it here with his permission:

The LGBT community has just produced undeniable biblical evidence that Jesus condoned gay marriage. With scribe-like insight, Jay Michaelson brings to light a passage that clearly shows Jesus condoning the gay lifestyle of a Roman centurion by healing his same-sex lover.

Well… not quite.

Jay Michaelson, a writer for Huffington Post’s “Gay Voices,” recently wrote an article titled “When Jesus Healed a Same-Sex Partner.” The entire article can be viewed here.  Although he refers to some excellent passages, his conclusions are misguided at best. At worst? Unashamed fabrication.

Here is how Michaelson recounts the story:

The story of the faithful centurion, told in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, is about a Roman centurion who comes to Jesus and begs that Jesus heal his pais, a word sometimes translated as “servant.” Jesus agrees and says he will come to the centurion’s home, but the centurion says that he does not deserve to have Jesus under his roof, and he has faith that if Jesus even utters a word of healing, the healing will be accomplished. Jesus praises the faith of the centurion, and the pais is healed. This tale illustrates the power and importance of faith, and how anyone can possess it. The centurion is not a Jew, yet he has faith in Jesus and is rewarded.

So what’s the big deal? Michaelson excitedly presents an interesting textual fact that has somehow evaded the eye of church scribes and intellectuals for almost 2,000 years: the person that Jesus healed was gay! This is how he makes his argument:

 But pais does not mean “servant.” It means “lover.” In Thucydides, in Plutarch, in countless Greek sources, and according to leading Greek scholar Kenneth Dover, pais refers to the junior partner in a same-sex relationship.

See, by healing the centurion’s same-sex lover, Jesus condones a kind of sexual intimacy other than heterosexuality! (Of course, this already raises an interesting question: does healing prove endorsement? Did Jesus condone every action of every person he healed? Seems like a stretch.)

First of all, the examples Michaelson gives (Thucydides and Plutarch) are pulled from Classical Greek, which is a separate study from the Koine Greek in which the New Testament was written. Even his “leading Greek scholar” (Kenneth Dover) is distinguished for his studies in Classical Greek. To “cross-pollinate” these two studies is a serious academic oversight. The use of a term in Classical Greek can greatly vary from the same term’s usage in Koine Greek, evident in something as seemingly trivial as the word the. The word pais is an example of this.

As with any term that has more than one possible meaning, we can best decipher an author’s intended meaning by seeing how he uses the same term elsewhere. In order to find out what Matthew and Luke mean by their use of pais, it would behoove us to look at their own use of this word in other contexts. Fortunately for our study, both authors use the word in several other places. Let’s take a look:

Matthew’s first use of pais is in Herod’s decree to kill all the male pais in the land (2:16). Was this a mass killing of young lover boys? Obviously not. Herod was trying to kill any and all boys around Jesus’ age in order to kill Jesus.

The next use (Matthew 12:18) is a quote from Isaiah, when God demands us to “Behold, my pais whom I have chosen.” Do we even want to suggest that God’s relationship with Jesus is a homosexual/pedophiliac one? That’ll be a difficult argument to make, to say the least.

Up next is when Herod hears about the miracles of Jesus and tells his servants (pais) that he thinks it is a returned-from-the-dead John the Baptist (14:2). It would make more sense for Herod to be discussing this issue with his civil servants instead of gossiping the news with his harem of young male lovers. The rest of Matthew’s uses of pais are similar: they refer to young boys or servants, with no evidence as to their sexual dealings with older men.

In the gospel of Luke, the word is used in reference to God’s pais Israel (make sense of that one), and God’s pais, David (again… are we to say David was the boy-lover of God?). Then we have the story of Jesus, when he remained in Jerusalem instead of returning home with his family (Luke 2:43). Unless you want to make the argument that Jesus (in his young days as a theological prodigy) was being molested by his teachers, pais in this context simply means boy.

Finally, in Luke 8:54 we have a similar story to that of the centurion. A ruler’s daughter dies. Jesus goes to the ruler’s house and, in the presence of the father and mother (and a few disciples), says the resurrecting words: “Pais, arise.” Now, unless Jesus is to be accused not only of pedophilia but also necrophilia, we would have to conclude that pais simply means “child.”

Just as the English word mistress doesn’t have to refer to a woman in an extramarital relationship, the Koine Greek word pais doesn’t always refer to a young boy who has sexual relations with older men. In fact, in the New Testament, it never does.

It seems Mr. Michaelson wanted something from Scripture that wasn’t really there: a proof-text for homosexuality being okayed by Jesus. Michaelson really doesn’t care what the Bible says about morality, though. He shows his cards when he says (concerning his take on the “pais” relationship): “This is not a relationship that any LGBT activist would want to promote today.” So wait, even if you are right about this word and about Jesus condoning this relationship, you would immediately refuse to promote such a relationship? Hold on… do you even care what Jesus thinks?

http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/08/jesus-healed-a-pedophiles-lover/

El Presidente Praises maahslimes While Thomas Jefferson Didn’t Trust Them

August 13, 2012 by Gary DeMar

Filed under 

11

The following remarks were made by President Obama at an Iftar Dinner for Muslims held at in the East Room at the White House:

As I’ve noted before, Thomas Jefferson once held a sunset dinner here with an envoy from Tunisia — perhaps the first Iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago. And some of you, as you arrived tonight, may have seen our special display, courtesy of our friends at the Library of Congress — the Koran that belonged to Thomas Jefferson.  And that’s a reminder, along with the generations of patriotic Muslims in America, that Islam — like so many faiths — is part of our national story.

As Paul Harvey would say, “Now the rest of the story.”

The Barbary pirates habitually preyed on ships from “Christian nations,” enslaving “Christian” seamen. “Barbary was Christendom’s Gulag Archipelago.”^[1]

Jefferson, embroiled in a war with Islamic terrorists in his day, commented, “Too long, for the honor of nations, have those Barbarians been [permitted] to trample on the sacred faith of treaties, on the rights and laws of human nature!”^[2]

Little has changed since the eighteenth century. In Joseph Wheelan’s well researched and highly readable book on America’s first war on terror with Islam, we learn that “Jefferson’s war pitted a modern republic with a free-trade, entrepreneurial creed against a medieval autocracy whose credo was piracy and terror. It matched an ostensibly Christian nation against an avowed Islamic one that professed to despise Christians.”^[3] Wheelan’s historical assessment of the time is on target. “Except for its Native American population and a small percentage of Jews, the United States was solidly Christian, while the North African regencies were just as solidly Muslim — openly hostile toward Christians.”^[4]

The Quran’s peace initiatives are one sided. To have peace, opposing forces must submit to Islam or be destroyed. Paul Johnson writes:

[T]he history of Islam from Arabia was followed by the rapid conquest of North Africa, the invasion and virtual conquest of Spain, and a thrust into France that carried the crescent to the gates of Paris. It took half a millennium or reconquest to expel the Moslems from Western Europe. The Crusades, far from being an outrageous prototype of Western imperialism, as is taught in most of our schools, were a mere episode in a struggle that has lasted 1,400 years and were one of the few occasions when Christians took the offensive to regain the “occupied territories” of the Holy Land.^[5]

As early as 1786, Jefferson, who was serving as the ambassador to France, and John Adams, the Ambassador to Britain at that time, met in London with Ambassador Abdrahaman, the Dey of Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote of funding. Peace would come at a price.

If America wanted a “temporary peace” — a one-year guarantee — it would cost $66,000 plus a 10% commission. “Everlasting peace” was a bargain at $160,000 plus the obligatory commission. The total cost came to $1.3 million. In a letter to John Jay, Jefferson wrote the following:

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.^[6]

Abdrahaman was paraphrasing the Quran’s “rules of engagement” found in the 47 Surah:

“Whenever you encounter the ones who disbelieve [during wartime], seize them by their necks until once you have subdued them, then tie them up as prisoners, either in order to release them later on, or also to ask for ransom, until war lays down her burdens.”

Unless a nation submits to Islam, that nation is by definition at war with Islam. Islam’s goal is to conquer the world, either by voluntary submission or by Allah’s sword.^[7]

When President Jefferson refused to increase the tribute demanded by the Islamists of his day, Tripoli declared war on the United States. A United States navy squadron, under Commander Edward Preble, blockaded Tripoli from 1803 to 1805. After rebel soldiers from Tripoli, led by United States Marines, captured the city of Derna, the Pasha of Tripoli signed a treaty promising to exact no more tribute.

The Marine’s Hymn with the line “From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli” should have been sung in the East Room of the White House to put history in perspective for the President and his Muslim guests.

Notes:

1. Stephen Clissold, The Barbary Slaves (New York: Barnes & Noble, [1977] 1992), 4. [↩]
2. Thomas Jefferson, congratulatory letter to Lt. Andrew Sterett (1760–1807). Quoted in Joseph Wheelan, Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror, 1801–1805 (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2003), 102. [↩]
3. Wheelan, Jefferson’s War, xxiii. [↩]
4. Wheelan, Jefferson’s War, 7. [↩]
5. Paul Johnson, “‘Relentlessly and Thoroughly’: The Only Way to Respond,” National Review (October 15, 2001). Consider this from John Quincy Adams: Consider the following from John Quincy Adams: “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.” [↩]
6. Quoted in Wheeler, Jefferson’s War, 40–41. [↩]
7. Robert Spencer, The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2006) and Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) ( Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2005). [↩]

http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/08/obama-praises-muslims-while-thomas-jefferson-didnt-trust-them/
http://visiontoamerica.com/11519/obama-praises-muslims-while-thomas-jefferson-didnt-trust-them/