Monthly Archives: May 2011

U.S. Muslims, Mosques, Voting Results, Camels and Tents


                                                                                    – Mary A. LaClair

              Muslims have proven to me to be blatantly hypocritical.  Both  radical Islam and the self proclaimed peaceful Islam have been further exposed, to me at least, as the false religion that it is. Let me explain with some examples. Muslims in Murfreesboro,TN tried to garner the sympathy of TV viewers regarding the demonstrations against their attempted building of a mosque in that community. A spokesman for the Muslims was seen walking over green grass while saying “America is a beautiful country.” He wasn’t walking on sand. The picture was set to be unarguable. Sure America is a beautiful country.

But America shouldn’t be beautiful to a Muslim. It should be a den of sin to Muslims because they believe in keeping women hidden behind burqas, with only faces or eyes showing while American women are walking around in mini-skirts and low cut tops. Sure America is a beautiful country. Many (FX), not all, female news anchors appear to have to meet the ‘show skin’ dress code, presumably to attract male viewers. This should offend all Muslims as a violation of their principles, yet they thinkAmericais a beautiful country. Of course! We have beautiful women and we don’t veil them. Therefore I find even the currently quiet Muslims hypocritical because they should find many American customs against their religion; yet, on their holiday they worship in the very New York City streets where our women are seen; and even sometimes too much of a woman is seen. I say they are blatantly hypocritical. Beware of white washed sepulchers. Being able to practice their religion here cannot be their main agenda because their religious beliefs should make them very uncomfortable with our way of life. Yet they ‘say’ they like our country. Who are they fooling?

A supposed peaceful Muslim, Muneer Awad has filed suit against the State of Oklahoma  “seeking a restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent Oklahoma from certifying election results for State Question 755.”

The ruling of State Question 755 amends Article 7, Section 1 of the Oklahoma constitution, which was described on the ballot to voters, as a directive to state courts to “rely on federal and state law when deciding cases.” The description stated that the amendment would “forbid courts from considering or using international law.” It would also, Muneer said, “forbid courts from considering or using Sharia Law.”

An article from the AP wire appearing in our paper 5/13/2011 states: “…Muneer Awad, who heads the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, has failed to show how the proposed amendment adversely affects his Muslim faith. Awad says the measure, if enacted, would invalidate his will…”

They know the idiom of “when the camel gets his nose under the tent”, and we’d best refresh ourselves of its meaning. “First the camel gets his nose under the tent, followed by the head, then the neck and back, then the whole body until finally when he rises to his feet, he brings the tent down around him.”

Muneer Awad and his clan need to know that America was founded as a refuge for people who were being oppressed and persecuted by the laws in their own countries. America is NOT founded for the purpose of establishing the laws of other countries here on this soil. We will NOT have women being oppressed by Sharia Law in this country. Awad was NOT oppressed in his own country so perhaps he’d better return to his native land which has the laws he does like. I’ll personally send some grass seed with him, but he’d probably feed it to his camel. America, love it or leave it.

When your religious laws contradict our National laws, OUR National laws will rule. Period.

Incidentally, I don’t find it coincidental that the words “camel” and “tent” were chosen for this wise old saying.

It certainly adds new meaning to us here in America today!

  muslims listen up                                                                                                       –end


A Quote from George Orwell

“WE HAVE SUNK TO SUCH DEPTHS THAT RESTATEMENT OF THE OBVIOUS IS THE DUTY OF INTELLIGENT MAN.”  – George Orwell      (or woman)!      Scroll down for newer posts. This quote will remain on top for awhile longer, as I think we need this constant reminder.  (smile)

This is meant to be a header.  Please scroll down to see most recent posts.  Thanks! 

Separation of Church and State Does Not Mean Separation of God and Country


 Separation of church and state does not mean separation of God and country. 

May it be remembered that this country was founded by people who left their homes and crossed the seas in order to get away from “anti-religion” and to get away from kings who had lost their “fear of God”; from kings who put their own mentality above that of God’s laws (secular humanism of today); from kings who punished people who spoke out against them for doing so as Sir Thomas Moore was punished, etc. 

Anyone who has read the “Virginia Papers” (adopted on June 27, 1788) would know that separation came about, not as “anti-religion” vs “religion” as they would have us think, but as an effort that no one church be favored above others.  It was definitely looking for “equal favor” not “equal disfavor”.  Today’s people seem to errantly interchange the words church and religion, and church and God. God is not a church; and a church is not God.  Historical papers (Proposed First Amendment from the Virginia Ratifying Convention June 27, 1788) actually openly acknowledge and state:  “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence…”  They could no longer support the colonial Methodists over the new Presbyterians; yet in so acknowledging, they retained as important the duty of acknowledging our Creator. 

These are active, positive words; not any passive, negative words. Separation of church and state, yes; separation of God and country, no; not according to this country’s founding documents and principles.

How many of those liberal separatists, of God and country, are trying to take out the one ingredient that made this country what it has been?  Who, when following a recipe, would leave out the egg or the baking soda?  When you take God out of this country, all you will get is an equally unpalatable mess on a national scale. This nation needs to return to the standards upon which it was founded. This nation needs to again openly acknowledge our Creator and recognize that we have a duty to Him, and discharge that duty by reason and conviction — if we are to hold on to that which has made us great.

Taking creationism out of the schools but not taking out evolutionism; imprisoning Operation Rescue non-violent, non-forceful (no weapons except that of reason) demonstrators; taking Christian events off the ‘secular menu’ while allowing gross indigestion on open cultist diets; removing the generic prayer and all mention of God from schools, removing Ten Commandments monument from a Federal Courthouse, allowing one man’s frivolous challenge to ‘under God’ in our national pledge…  these are ways in which we recognize “the duty we owe our Creator”?, and, “the manner of discharging it”?  Can we be surprised if we fall? 

Alexis de Tocqueville, a Frenchman who came to America in the early 1800’s to determine the “secret” of our successful democracy, wrote, “Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention.  Religion in America … must be regarded as the foremost of political institutions of that country.”

And yet, those who would see the demise of what was once a great nation, know that all they have to do is remove that one ingredient to see us fall; religion — duty to our Creator.  Not church, but religion and God, which is the background for all Christian churches. Churches, plural, as opposed to the singular Church of England.

Our forefathers may have clearly intended separation of church and state, but they did not intend separation from Godly religion, and they certainly did not intend separation God and country.  Rather, the joining of God and Country is the ingredient which has brought us so far.

To deny this would be to implement Pogo’s words:  “We have met the enemy and he is us!”       – end