Wednesday, November 18, 2015

"The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous run to it and are safe."

Along with the more numerous threats and imprecations of those who disagreed with me on recent posts, I received a handful of supportive messages and emails such as the one below (as well as the Bible verse from Proverbs Chapter 18 in the header above). God bless you all for your kind words. I'm taking a lot of flak for those posts but I guess that means I'm over the target.
To: Mike Vanderboegh
Sent: Tue, Nov 17, 2015 8:11 am
Subject: Muslim Innocent Posts--Some Encouragement
Good Morning. I just started perusing your blog this morning and saw some of the replies from the "all Muslims must die" crowd (and some of the barely less radical elements). I didn't read all of the comments because I've been reading enough of that around here from the former friend I'd mentioned before who's turned racial collectivist.
I know how discouraging it is to see this--especially for you as a founder of the Threeper movement--so I just wanted to add my voice to the other side. Thank you for standing up for the Biblical, moral position of defending the innocent. There are others of us out here who agree with you, and it's encouraging to us to read your words. It's, frankly, a long overdue breath of fresh air--no lies about a "religion of peace," no collectivist "kill them all" statements, but a leader actually saying "Yes their religion is wrong, but God didn't tell us to judge them for that, and we protect all innocent parties."
Keep up the good work. It encourages us, and it is right in the eyes of the only court which matters. Have a blessed day.


Anonymous said...

The question you asked was would I the reader kill a baby. While I would like to think I would not when push comes to shove I might even eat one. The part of the our father prayer, and put me not to the test oh lord is something I pray in earnest. Ecc.4:3

ag42b said...

The "kill them all, let God sort them out" mentality has always been morally wrong. A young child has not yet developed the capacity to hate or injure anyone, whatever faith the parents profess.

It is the person who subjects the child to the narrowness and bigotry of radical religion who needs to disappear, and only when they have taken actual action to injure Americans. Internecine religious squabbles in the middle east are not our concern, except where they endanger members of minority communities that cannot protect themselves, such as Coptic Christians, Maronites, and other groups who would easily and positively assimilate into our society.

Killing children for what they might become reeks of "future crime" and thought control, concepts not embraced in our Constitution. It is by acts that men are known.

Anonymous said...

Paris Concert Crowd Was Singing ‘Kiss The Devil’ The Moment Terror Attacks Began

As those people bled and died on the dance floor of the Death Metal concert, they went from singing about the Devil to meeting the Devil face to face.

Anonymous said...

Obama is AWOL

As Paris burns, Obama teeters on the edge of reality. As Paris burns, Obama worries about sea levels in the Seychelles. As Paris burns, Obama calls Friday’s attacks, ‘a setback.’

A setback, Mr. President? One-hundred and twenty-nine people are dead, 350 plus are wounded and you call it a setback. What happened in Paris is a declaration of war on all of us.

Only hours before the Paris attacks began, Obama told the press that “ISIS was contained.” Contained like what, nitro-glycerin?

President Obama is AWOL (absent without leave) and has abandoned his duties as President, his post as Commander in Chief, his chair as the leader of the free world.

He is nothing more than a delusional weakling who is sleep-walking through the White House, while ISIS murders its way across the planet.

Anonymous said...

Amen (from a Jew whose view of G-d is not always Jewish)

Timothy Roesch

Chiu ChunLing said...

Well, if we're going to attempt to settle the question by the Bible...most of the directly pertinent passages actually seem to take the other side.

Which is why we do need to apply a bit of judgment. And my pertinent judgment is that "should" implies "can". It is all well and good to speak of the value of sparing innocent lives, but you don't always have that power, and the delusion that you do can kill people you could have saved.

Consider a tsunami. Before the incoming wave, the preceding trough draws the water line down, revealing a long expanse of previously submerged beach along with many fish and other marine life trapped in the remaining shallows. You know what is coming and have a hundred people with you who will follow your orders unquestioning, but there are thousands of people on the beach who do not know you or what is coming, only what they see before them, and they are running down into the newly exposed shoals to marvel and catch what's there.

Do you tell those with you to go and try to round up everyone who is in danger, or do you tell them all to immediately head for the highest ground they can and climb the sturdiest trees they can find?

These are not your only choices. You could tell everyone to form a cordon and make sure nobody tries to escape the coming wave, and I suppose by analogy some are suggesting this. You could have everyone sing praises to the devil, or kneel and pray, or start digging in hopes of reaching America in time. You have other choices, and if you manage to somehow assemble a hundred human bodies into a watertight forcefield which can repel the tsunami, I'll be very impressed...but I for one won't be counting on such a plan to actually work.

We have a responsibility to seriously consider what we can do in expounding what we "should" do. If not so, then the only moral position on guns would be to rely on faith and prayers instead.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Gabriel Suarez makes several good points in this regard. he notes that, should you find yourself in an active shooter circumstance, and see somebody in a police uniform, firing into the crowd, he has shown himself a Bad Guy, and needs to be dealt with accordingly. Should you see a person in a hijab, moving from cover to cover, and appearing to target the active shooter, protect her back, and help thwart the shooter. Actions define which side of the divide a person occupies.

Anonymous said...

Do not murder anyone. Period. As far as our current situation goes, no Muslim refugees should be admitted to this country. All Muslim adults in the Armed Forces should be given Honorable Discharges and sent home. Muslims should be barred from police forces and the military. All Muslims not American citizens should have their visas revoked and deported. All Mosques and Madrassas should be subject to surveillance and monitoring under FISA guidelines, or shut down. CAIR should be shut down and investigated by Congress in open hearings. You cannot be a true Muslim and an American citizen.
Now, I know the hand-wringers and "Christian" hypocrites who are taking my tax money to resettle these "refugees" will be all over me like cheap suit. Just remember, you clueless do-gooders, this country got along just fine before we allowed these murder-cultists into our land. Yes, they kill their own daughters for consorting with a non-Muslim male. Incest and inbreeding is a way of life with these people. They stopped contributing anything to the world around the 15th Century. They will not assimilate. They will take over. This is their creed. Look no further than Dearbornistan or Hamtramck to see what is happening. I do not want to kill them. I want to kick them out of my country. To the ones who are here as citizens, then reverse-dhimmitude would be appropriate.
FDR had no qualms about incarcerating Japanese-Americans during WWII and confiscating their property. This was a result of a declaration of war. So what are we in now? We either treat our current illness aggressively or we will succumb to it.

Anonymous said...

Evil versus Good is what the struggle has always been about, is it not?

To become evil in your fight against evil only means that evil will win in the end.

Therefore for good to win you must be a warrior of good and not evil.

The means to an end does make a difference as to what the ultimate results become.

Comrade X

WarriorClass III said...

People must realize that it is the Federal Government that is the enemy of the people. The Globalists have completely taken over the government, using its power to implement these crimes against the people, and that ISIS is just another tool used against us.

And while we must protect ourselves against the ISIS terrorists, we must never forget who the real terrorists are - those in the Federal Government that have created them and brought them to our shores. Who created and voted for the Patriot Acts, the NDAA, and other freedom-destroying "laws" in our country? Who gave Obama "Fast-Track" Authority to implement the Republic-destroying "Trade Agreements?" Who wants even more immigration in the US, in Both Parties, when 94,000,000 Americans are out of work?

Who put vote-rigging machines in YOUR district?

It wasn't ISIS.

Big Al said...

Just as Abraham blessed Isaac, he also blessed Ishmael and that he would father many after him, such is the case with his descendants of the Arab nations. The God of the Universe has a purpose and plan for these people in the end times, that they may learn the truth of his word and see the error of their ways. Keep up the great work Mike, Blessings to you and your loved ones.

MikeH. said...

The post, and subsequent comments from yesterday, were quite telling. I am not surprised by the number of comments written by those who claim they would, offhandedly, kill an infant or child. I am dismayed, even angered, but not shocked or surprised. There are far too many Radical Rick / Billy Bad Ass, macho slinging bullshit artists out there trying to impress a babe, or a Walter Mitty couch spud tough guy wanna-be.

If you think for one second you can kill an infant for no other reason than to eradicate a particular race of people, you are not a man, you are a budding psychopath. (Read; Hitler, Mao, Stalin, et al) You would be in the group of people who will stand between me and the lawless scum who will kill, rape and pillage... and justify it in their own minds as "survival", after some cataclysmic event.

Pick the wrong path and you will not be welcomed as an ally in my camp. You will be despised as a criminal, or targeted as an enemy combatant. And you will, for sure, not be accepted into God's camp.

It's simple; You don't kill ANYONE who isn't actively trying to kill you or another.

A Christian Geriatric Threeper

bubba said...

There are only two sides.

We should be careful to not be the person who believes evil is that which is in conflict with ours not God's will.

Without the help from the Holy Spirit we are simply wicked in all of our ways.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 3:35--

That was some truly sick shit. The most UNChristian thing I can think of.

Anonymous said...

To the person @3:35 - For the record, The Eagles Of Death Metal aren't a death metal band. They aren't even a metal band. Wikipedia exists - use it!

Mike, the voice of reason isn't necessarily appreciated - but it's needed. Thank you for taking a stand.

So, with that out of the way - no, we don't necessarily need to line up all the XYZs and shoot them. But we do need to tighten up our borders and stop treating illegals like they were long-lost relatives.

For a frame of reference, check out Canada's requirements for emigrants. You'll be surprised.

Woodcanoe said...

I don't remember anyone here yesterday saying he would kill a baby in a crib, simply because of who he was!

I was able to meet Chuck Sweeney in Bangor, Maine some years back. He was the USAAF pilot that flew the B-29 Superfortress named "Bock's Car" on the atomic mission to Nagasaki, Japan. It goes without saying that, in the resulting atomic explosion that tens of thousands of Japanese civilians, men, women and children died. Yet this was the by product of all out warfare. Nobody ever said war was "nice" or that you could pick and choose your targets all the time. Sweeney was asked, in my presence, if had had any second thoughts about what he had done. He replied NO, and that in the same circumstances he would do so again!

Today many are saying we have to let all these refugees in here, it is the "humanitarian thing" to do. Most on the left who have written down their thoughts have called many of us of the conservative bent, "bigots, racists, monsters, illiterate stupid low lifes and so on, in the usual way the left responds, for daring to disagree with them!

The people of the left, particularly from Acamdemia and the political elites, cannot process logical thoughts in their brains. An algebraic equation has two sides to it that have to be figured out. In a similar vein there are sayings like: "every action has an equal and opposite reaction"; "actions have consequences" and so on.

Thus, in similar vein, it has behooved them to say that we must take in ALL these refugees, that it is the humanitarian thing to do! But they won't even talk about the fact that there may well be a downside to that action. So lets look at the OTHER side of that question.

Say 100,000 muslims come into this country in the next 6 months. (Millions have ALREADY come in before now). There is no way really, and no attempt even being made to "vet out" these people. A reasonable person could easily think that at least a few dozen or so, maybe more, could be "radical Jihadist's" who are simply going to go to sleep here until they are called to duty. Is it that far fetched to imagine a similar attack on a theater in New York City one day soon? How about Washington, DC?

Among all of these people, those here now, and those on the way, we have absolutely NO IDEA if there are any "jihadists" or not. Reasonable people would think it safe to assume that there likely are SOME.

So because we can't tell the good ones from the bad ones, and many in power, including the POTUS and the highest levels of the United States government, don't even want to try to figure that out, it is safe to say that there is definitely "RISK being posed to the citizens of America by this enterprise. How much risk nobody knows. So just how many American citizens will we have to watch be murdered in the most brutal ways possible, before we think the risk is too HIGH?

Yet it will.....continue for some time at least as the battle between left and right heats up even more than in the past. I am betting that we will have a similar attack on AMERICAN soil in the not too distant future. I am not a jihadist but I can see soft targets all across America where a lot of damage could be done by very few determined ruthless people. ISIS has told us it is coming and I certainly believe them. I know full well that America does NOT have the power to stop this. There are only so many cops and the military cannot guard the nation so it's only a question of where and when.

If they hit DC, NYC, LA or some of the larger urban areas, they are not going to hurt me personally. I am glad I live in the woods so to speak. The places they might hit, coincidentally, are where those who wish them to come here, live for the most part, so it will be in THEIR dooryards if/when it happens.


Chiu ChunLing said...

I think that a lot of people are willfully ignoring the fact that our enemies have proven perfectly willing and rather adept at making it impossible to kill them without killing innocents as well.

Frankly, I want to go on record as morally opposed to ALL killing, without exception. If there were a way to reliably stop murderers and rapists and such without killing them, then I would say that killing them was morally wrong. But the fact of the matter is that, practically, there isn't any reliable way to stop such criminals without killing them, and we've lost a lot of innocent lives trying. At some point, it is immoral to sacrifice more innocent lives to the theory that you can save ALL lives.

But the logic holds valid when we are in a situation where it is simply not possible to save all innocent lives. To sacrifice the lives you could have saved attempting to save those you cannot save is immoral.

We cannot save every innocent Muslim. We've already seen far too many of them killed and our current best idea is to let those killing them into our countries to kill us as well. I've suggested ways to structure refugee camps so that they would act as a filter to allow us to identify and eliminate the more murderous elements, but I recognize full well that they are politically impossible to implement or maintain.

If we can start by at least saving innocent Christians from the Middle East, then I'll be encouraged (the test for whether we are actually correctly identifying Christians is how long it takes them, after moving to a majority Christian country with far less violent persecution, before they decide that Islam suits them better after all).

When you show me that we can muster the political will and intelligence acumen to save innocent Christians from the Middle East, I'll become open to testing ideas for the much more difficult task of identifying and saving innocent Muslims, I really will.

But until then, I won't believe we have that capability. We only have the ability to sacrifice more innocent lives along with those we're failing to save.

Chiu ChunLing said...

Just to reiterate a point I made before, would those willing to kill anyone who kills innocent children also be willing to kill abortion doctors, pro-choice legislators, and women who've had abortions?

After all, we're not only talking about people who hypothetically have considered circumstances under which they might kill an innocent baby to achieve some more important end. We're talking about people who have actually done or facilitated such killing on a massive scale, largely for their own convenience.