Best Seller?

From  of The Blaze:

A bookstore in Canada has sold out of an Islamic marriage guide that instructs Muslim men on how to beat their wives, according to the Toronto Sun.

Among the advice dispensed in “A Gift for the Muslim Couple” is to “beat by hand or stick” and “pull [her] by the ears.” The husband may also withhold money to exert control, though should “refrain from beating her excessively.”

The 160-page book’s description says it “deals with the subject of marriage and after marriage relationship, as well as the various pitfalls of marriage, causes of breakdown and their causes.” It was being sold at Islamic Books and Souvenirs in Toronto. The store’s manager told the Toronto Sun it had been sold out for some time. The owner refused to comment to the newspaper.

“[I]t might be necessary to restrain her with strength or even to threaten her,” writes author Hazrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, described as a “prolific writer on almost every topic of Islamic learning.”

The book lists the husband’s supposed rights, which say the wife is unable to leave “his house without his permission,” and that she must “fulfill his desires” and “not allow herself to be untidy…but should beautify herself for him.”

Thanvi also writes that “the husband should treat the wife with kindness and love, even if she tends to be stupid and slow sometimes.”

Wasim Vania, president of the Islamic Society of Toronto, condemned the book, telling the Sun it “should never have entered Canada.”

“We were the first religion to give power to women. It is sad that someone would write this. We don’t have hatred in our hearts and we don’t teach this,” Vania said.

In January, a Canadian jury convicted a Muslim husband, wife and son of murdering three teenage daughters and a co-wife in what was termed an honor killing. The trial transfixed the country and prompted a debate about assimilating immigrants.

My Opinion, Sandra Fluke and Contraception

By now, everyone is familiar with this poor poor woman spending $40,000 per year at Georgetown Law & can’t afford her $1000.00 per year contraception bill. It’s not fair she should have to pay for her own birth control out-of-pocket despite the fact that she knew ahead of time that her  health insurance through Georgetown, a Catholic University, would not cover contraception.

This thing regarding the testimony of the Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke is a dodge. It has been a set up from word go.

 Don’t get me wrong. I give credit for the redirect to the Obama handlers, the democrats and the zombies in the mainstream media. (I guess that’s a bit redundant. The media are the Obama handlers).

 It has been established long ago that the media gets their marching orders directly from the White House and it’s surrogates.

We should have seen this coming from the time George Snuffleupagus, asked Mitt Romney if States should be able to outlaw contraception. The question came seemingly from out of nowhere.

But, of course, it didn’t come from out of nowhere, nor was the question fashioned by the moderator or anyone else in the news (stenography) business.

It came directly from someone in the Obama administration, or from one of the many organizations that walk in lock step.

Yes, I know. I, like you, am shocked to learn that a respected journalist (you may chuckle if you’d like) such as Stephanopoulos would agree to posit a question merely to advance the administration’s agenda.

So, what’s the agenda, the dodge, the redirect? It’s twofold. First is to get the media, the candidates and the public to concentrate on something other than the economy. Second is the female vote. Obama has been losing support of women for quite sometime. The abortion issue is not playing the way it used to. Something had to be done to bring women back to the dems and Obama. Just like magic, a new issue appears.

Evidently, they’ve decided that contraception is their battle cry. On behalf of helpless damsels everywhere, they will bring the fight directly to the evil Republicans, those who would deny women the right to  contraception. Huh?

Well, that’s the way it’s been framed, has it not?

Now, anyone who has a thought in their head, would realize, as Mitt Romney stated, no one is going to take away a woman’s contraception, nor is it even a healthcare issue. That matters not to the left. Their only concern is the advancement of the agenda at any cost.

I was going to say that the left are masters at forcing an issue to the fore. At redirecting the conversation away from what is truly important in this country today. I stopped myself due to the realization that they don’t have to be masters. They have every major TV (save Fox), print and Internet outlet to do their bidding. I’ll give them kudos for coming up with idea, but advancing it is easy.

And, as always happens, we conservative dolts play right along.  Let us not discuss domestic energy policy, more bankrupt solar companies, European meltdown or the Middle East blowing up. Surely our heroes getting killed in Afghanistan are not worthy of discussion.

I am only writing of this to show how wearily trivial it is and to demonstrate how easy, with a complicit media, a topic can be advanced. 

Even Rush Limbaugh was sucked into this. For days he belabored the topic of Fluke and her testimony before Pelosi’s committee. What a waste of valuable airtime. It was great for the left. They had every excuse to hammer on the subject, even getting candidates to denounce Limbaugh. Our people naturally oblige them and appear content to play along.

If you are a regular reader of mine, you know I’m no fan of Newt Gingrich. However, one of the things I do appreciate about Gingrich is his eagerness to take the fight to the lefties. He will call them out when he sees their attempt at advancing propaganda .

Like Newt, we need all conservatives to stand up & say, enough. This topic is a Trojan horse, & we will not discuss it anymore. We know what you’re trying to do and we will no longer play along.

Catholics Deal With the Devil

Excerpts from Paul A. Rahe’s article titled: American Catholicism’s Pact With the Devil

One might say that the Catholic Church itself laid the groundwork for the recent firestorm they find themselves embroiled in. I speak, of course, of the battle royal between the Church and the Obama administration over what they claimed to be “Women’s Healthcare”.

Now, just as the whites of today cannot be held to account for slavery, Catholics leaders of today cannot be accountable for their past leaders. Or can they?

It might be instructive to add some historical perspective to this dilemma.

In the burgeoning American republic, the principle of limited government was codified in its purest form in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But it had additional ramifications as well – for the government’s scope was limited also in other ways.

 There were other amendments that made up what we call the Bill of Rights, and many of the states prefaced their constitutions with bills of rights or added them as appendices. These were all intended to limit the scope of the government. They were all designed to protect the right of individuals to life, liberty, the acquisition and possession of property, and the pursuit of happiness as these individuals understood happiness. Put simply, liberty of conscience was part of a larger package.

This is what the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church forgot.

In the 1930s, the majority of the bishops, priests, and nuns sold their souls to the devil, and they did so, as is usual, with the best of intentions.

Due to their concern during the Depression, for the suffering of those out of work and destitute, they wholeheartedly embraced the New Deal. They gloried in the fact that Franklin Delano Roosevelt made Frances Perkins, a devout Anglo-Catholic laywoman who belonged to the Episcopalian Church but retreated on occasion to a Catholic convent, Secretary of Labor and the first member of her sex to be awarded a cabinet post.

They welcomed Social Security, which was her handiwork. They did not stop to ponder whether public provision in this regard would subvert the moral principle that children are responsible for the well being of their parents. They did not stop to consider whether this measure would reduce the incentives for procreation and nourish the temptation to think of sexual intercourse as an indoor sport. They just did not stop to think of any potential consequences.

In the process, the leaders of the American Catholic Church fell prey to that which had long before ensnared a great many mainstream Protestants in the United States. That of the notion that public provision is somehow akin to charity and so they fostered state paternalism and undermined what they professed to teach: that charity is an individual responsibility and that it is appropriate that the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to alleviate the suffering of the poor.

In its place, they helped establish the Machiavellian principle that underpins modern liberalism, the belief that it is our Christian duty to confiscate other people’s money and redistribute it.

At every turn in American politics since that time, you will find the Catholic hierarchy assisting the Democratic Party and promoting the growth of the administrative entitlement state. It did not cross the minds of the hierarchy, that the paternalistic state they had embraced, would someday turn on the Church and seek to dictate how it would conduct its affairs.

The weapon that Barack Obama has directed at the Church was fashioned to a considerable degree by Catholic churchmen. They welcomed Obamacare. They encouraged Senators and Congressmen who professed to be Catholics to vote for it.

The Roman Catholic Church in the United States has lost much of its moral authority.

In 1973, when the Supreme Court made its decision in Roe v. Wade, had the bishops, priests, and nuns screamed bloody murder and declared war, as they have recently done, the decision would have been reversed. Instead, under the leadership of Joseph Bernadin, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, they asserted that the social teaching of the Church was a “seamless garment,” and they treated abortion as one concern among many.

Here is what Cardinal Bernadin said in the Gannon Lecture at Fordham University that he delivered in 1983:

“Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.

Consistency means that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.” 

The truth is that the priests in the United States are far more likely to push the “social justice” agenda of the Church from the pulpit than to instruct the faithful in the evils of abortion.

And there is more. Paul has not once, in the thirteen years of attending mass, heard the argument against contraception articulated from the pulpit, nor has he once heard the argument for chastity articulated. In the face of the sexual revolution, the bishops, priests, and nuns of the American Church have by and large fallen silent. In effect, they have abandoned the moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in order to articulate a defense of the administrative entitlements state and its progressive expansion.

Those who seek to create heaven on earth and who, to this end, subvert the liberty of others and embrace the administrative entitlement state will sooner or later become its victims.