Saturday, May 31, 2025

Why the Ten Commandments Still Matter: Rediscovering the Foundation of Faith in a New Covenant Age

 In the age of grace, when the message of the New Testament takes center stage in Christian thought, the Old Testament is often relegated to the background—especially the Ten Commandments. Yet Scripture reveals that these commandments are not only foundational but enduringly relevant for spiritual growth, moral discernment, and understanding God’s redemptive plan. Far from being obsolete, the law continues to serve a vital purpose in the life of every believer.

Walking Before Running: Foundational Faith

Spiritual maturity, like physical growth, requires process. Just as a child learns to walk before running, believers must learn foundational truths before diving into deeper revelations. The Ten Commandments are that spiritual "milk"—basic yet essential. They are not optional training wheels but the very frame upon which a believer's moral and spiritual awareness is built.

To disregard the Ten Commandments is to attempt a spiritual life without direction or discernment. As the Apostle Paul affirms, “the law is spiritual” (Romans 7:14), revealing that these divine precepts transcend cultural and ceremonial boundaries. They mirror God’s character, express His will, and unveil His standards for righteousness.

The Law’s Enduring Role in Christian Life

Contrary to the popular view that the Old Testament law has been abolished, the New Testament consistently affirms its moral relevance. Paul wrote that the law is “the embodiment of knowledge and truth” (Romans 2:20), and Jesus Himself declared, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17).

The law serves several purposes: it exposes sin (Romans 3:20), convicts the conscience (Romans 7:7), and leads us to recognize our need for a Savior. It acts as a mirror, showing us what we truly are apart from divine grace. When properly understood, the Ten Commandments point not away from Christ but directly to Him.

This distinction is crucial. While ceremonial laws—rituals, dietary restrictions, and sacrifices—were shadows pointing to Christ and now fulfilled in Him, the moral law remains. Murder, adultery, theft, and idolatry are not cultural taboos but eternal violations of God’s righteousness.

The Authority of "It Is Written"

One of the most powerful endorsements of the Old Testament comes from the New Testament itself. The repeated phrase “It is written” saturates the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Whether in refuting temptation, teaching the crowds, or writing epistles to the early church, New Testament authors relied heavily on the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures.

For example, when Paul speaks of moral issues, he cites the commandments. When Jesus confronts Satan, He quotes Deuteronomy. This is not mere historical reference—it is theological endorsement. The Old Testament was the Scripture of the early Church. Timothy, we are told, “from childhood... was acquainted with the sacred writings” (2 Timothy 3:15), referring to the Old Testament texts.

To claim the Old Testament is obsolete is to amputate the root of Christian faith. The commandments provide context for Christ's mission and clarity to His teachings. Romans 15:4 reminds us that “whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction.”

The New Covenant and the Law’s Fulfillment

It is vital to grasp how the New Covenant interacts with the Old. The New Covenant, inaugurated by the blood of Christ, does not negate the law but fulfills its righteous requirements. Jesus’ death was not the dismissal of justice but its satisfaction. His atonement was a legal transaction—He paid the penalty required by the law, thus ransoming us into a new relationship with God.

Hebrews 10:1 calls the law “a shadow of the good things to come,” and while shadows are surpassed by reality, they are not meaningless. Rather, they are essential for understanding the form and substance of divine truth. The law taught us about sin, justice, holiness, and the need for sacrifice—each fulfilled and embodied in Jesus Christ.

Faith, Works, and the Role of the Holy Spirit

While the law reveals sin, it cannot save. That role belongs to faith in Christ alone. Galatians 3:10 makes clear that “all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse,” because no one can keep the law perfectly. Salvation comes through faith, and faith—when genuine—produces the works that the law demands. This is not legalism but transformation.

Here enters the Holy Spirit. Through Him, believers are not only justified but sanctified—empowered to walk in alignment with God’s character. The Spirit does not lead believers into lawlessness but into obedience. As Paul teaches in Romans 8, “the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

The Spirit's fruit (Galatians 5:22–23) is the moral outworking of a heart transformed—not unlike the moral imperatives embedded in the Ten Commandments. Love, patience, goodness, and self-control are not new virtues but spiritual fulfillments of ancient truth.

Jewish Identity, Gentile Inclusion, and God’s Eternal Covenant

Circumcision, a key marker of Jewish identity, signified covenant membership. Yet Paul argues that true circumcision is of the heart (Romans 2:29). This reflects the transition from external signs to internal transformation. The Old Covenant required obedience written on stone tablets; the New Covenant writes God’s law on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33).

Gentiles, once “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel” (Ephesians 2:12), are now grafted in through faith. But grafting into the tree of Israel doesn’t nullify its roots—it unites the wild branch with the cultivated tree. In doing so, believers—Jew and Gentile alike—are called into the full legacy of God’s moral, covenantal, and redemptive purposes.

Conclusion: A Call to Whole-Bible Christianity

The Christian who neglects the Old Testament or dismisses the Ten Commandments as relics of a bygone era risks building their faith on a partial foundation. The law is not the enemy of grace but its stage. It prepares the heart for Christ, convicts the soul of sin, and guides the believer toward righteousness.

To meditate on God's law is to meditate on God's heart. Psalm 1 tells us that the blessed man “delights in the law of the LORD,” and this delight leads to fruitfulness and spiritual vitality.

Engaging deeply with both covenants, understanding their unity and distinct roles, and submitting to the Spirit’s guidance is the path toward mature, transformative faith. The commandments still matter—not as a means of salvation but as markers of the life salvation produces.

“It is written” should remain not just a phrase of the past but a daily guide for every believer. Let the whole Word shape your whole life.

Friday, May 30, 2025

THE SECOND COMMANDMENT, AS PRESENTED IN EXODUS 20:4-6, ADDRESSES THE PROHIBITION AGAINST IDOLATRY AND THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES. The Following Analysis Of The Second Commandment Is Structured To Focus On Key Points, Implications, And Scriptural References. This analysis aims to unpack the theological and practical significance of the commandments, emphasizing the relationship between God and His people, the nature of worship, and the consequences of disobedience.

This commandment is crucial for understanding the nature of worship and the relationship between God and His people. The Roman Catholic Church excludes it in their teaching of the Ten Commandments, claiming it is covered in the First Commandment. But is it? 

Differences between the 1st & 2nd commandments are:

1.      Focus on Idolatry: The Second Commandment analysis delves deeper into the concept of idolatry, both in physical and metaphorical terms, while the First Commandment primarily establishes the necessity of exclusive devotion to God.

2.      Historical Context: The Second Commandment implicitly addresses what are essentially historical struggles with idolatry, providing context for the commandment's relevance.

3.      Broader Definition of Idolatry: The Second Commandment analysis expands the definition of idolatry to include sinful desires and practices, reflecting a New Testament understanding.

4.      Warnings Against Idolatry: The Second Commandment specifically addresses idolatry, while the First Commandment focuses on the exclusive worship of Yahweh, which can be seen as a foundational aspect that the Second Commandment builds upon.

Here’s a structured analysis of the 2nd commandment's key points and implications:

1. Prohibition of Idolatry

·         No Idols or Images: The commandment explicitly forbids the creation of idols or images representing anything in the heavens, earth, or waters. This prohibition underscores the transcendence of God and the inadequacy of physical representations to capture His essence.

2. The Nature of God

·         Jealous God: God describes Himself as a "jealous God," indicating His desire for exclusive devotion from His people. This jealousy is not petty but reflects His commitment to the covenant relationship and the seriousness of idolatry as a breach of that relationship.

3. Consequences of Idolatry

·         Visiting Iniquity: The commandment warns that the iniquity of those who hate God can affect future generations. This concept emphasizes the communal and generational impact of sin, suggesting that idolatry can lead to a cycle of disobedience and estrangement from God.

4. Reward for Faithfulness

·         Loving Kindness to Thousands: In contrast to the consequences of idolatry, God promises loving kindness to those who love Him and keep His commandments. This highlights the blessings associated with faithfulness and obedience, reinforcing the idea that a relationship with God is both personal and communal.

5. Idolatry in Practice

·         Historical Examples: The references to Israel's history (Deuteronomy 4:19; 2 Kings 17:16; 2 Chronicles 18:18) illustrate the persistent temptation to worship created things rather than the Creator. These examples serve as warnings against the allure of idolatry, which can manifest in various forms, including the worship of celestial bodies and false gods.

6. Idolatry of the Heart

·         Internal Idolatry: Ezekiel 14:4-7 emphasizes that idolatry is not merely an external act but can occur in the heart. The commandment calls for introspection and a return to God, urging individuals to examine their lives for any idols that may have taken precedence over their relationship with Him.

7. New Testament Perspectives

·         Idolatry as Sin: In the New Testament, idolatry is expanded to include not just physical idols but also sinful desires and practices (Colossians 3:5; 1 Peter 4:3-4). This broadens the understanding of idolatry to encompass anything that takes the place of God in a person's life, including materialism, lust, and other sinful behaviors.

8. Theological Implications

·         Worship and Relationship: The Second Commandment emphasizes that true worship must be directed toward God alone. It challenges believers to consider what they prioritize in their lives and to ensure that their devotion is directed solely to God, who is worthy of worship.

Conclusion

The Second Commandment serves as a vital reminder of the dangers of idolatry, both in its physical forms and in the more subtle ways it can infiltrate the heart. It calls for a commitment to the exclusive worship of Yahweh, recognizing His sovereignty and the importance of maintaining a pure relationship with Him. By understanding the implications of this commandment, believers are encouraged to examine their lives for any idols—whether external objects or internal inclinations—and to cultivate a deeper, more faithful relationship with God.


Wednesday, May 28, 2025

UNDERSTANDING THE IDENTITY OF THE CREATOR AND LEARNING WHAT IT MEANS TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIM IS THE MOST PRESSING ISSUE FOR EVERY ONE OF US. Yet For Some Reason Most People Seem Oblivious To This Fact Simply Accepting That Death Is Inevitable And Although No One Wants To Grow Old And Die, There Is Nothing That Can Be Done. Seeking out the Creator of Life requires us to first have an ear to hear His voice; an improbability if we are not tuned into the right frequency.

 

No Other Gods: The Foundational Call of the First Commandment

The First Commandment, as recorded in Exodus 20:1–3, marks the beginning of the moral and spiritual framework that undergirds both the Old and New Testaments. "And God spoke all these words, saying, 'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me.'" This declaration is not merely a prohibition—it is a revelation. It discloses the character of God, the condition of humanity, and the essence of true worship. Within its concise yet weighty language lies the foundational ethos of biblical faith: exclusive devotion to the God who delivers.

1. Divine Communication: God Speaks

The commandment opens with an astonishing reality—God speaks. Unlike idols, which are mute and powerless, Yahweh communicates with His people. This sets the stage for a relationship built not on blind ritual or distant fear but on intimate instruction. The voice that once thundered from Mount Sinai now echoes through the pages of Scripture and in the hearts of believers by His Spirit. As Jesus affirmed in Mark 12:28–29, when asked about the greatest commandment, He pointed directly to the Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” This underscores that listening is the first act of worship. Faith comes by hearing (Romans 10:17), and the covenant begins with God's initiative to speak, not man's effort to ascend.

2. The Identity of God: Yahweh as Deliverer

Before issuing any commands, God identifies Himself: “I am the Lord your God.” This is not a generic deity issuing decrees. It is Yahweh, the covenant-keeping God, who personally intervened in history to rescue His people. The phrase "who brought you out of the land of Egypt" anchors His authority in a concrete act of redemption. In biblical theology, God’s identity is inseparable from His actions. He is not just the Creator but also the Deliverer. He doesn’t command obedience from a throne of detachment but from the platform of relationship—having saved His people, He now instructs them in the way of life.

3. Historical Deliverance and Typology: Egypt as Bondage

The mention of Egypt is pregnant with typological meaning. Egypt, while a geographical location, functions as a symbol of bondage—a place of systemic oppression, idolatry, and dehumanization. The Exodus event is not merely historical; it is prophetic. It prefigures a greater deliverance—the liberation of all humanity from the dominion of sin through the Messiah. This typological pattern is confirmed in Genesis 15:13–14, where God foretells Israel’s captivity and redemption, setting the precedent for His redemptive dealings.

4. Spiritual Bondage: From Pharaoh to the Flesh

The phrase “house of slavery” (or “house of bondage”) expands the scope of deliverance from merely physical freedom to spiritual emancipation. The New Testament writers draw this connection explicitly. Paul refers to the unregenerate condition as one of enslavement: "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods" (Galatians 4:8). Likewise, Ephesians 2:1–3 describes humanity as "dead in trespasses and sins... following the prince of the power of the air." Egypt becomes a stand-in for all that holds the soul captive—addictions, ideologies, fear, pride, and spiritual darkness.

5. The Exclusive Worship of Yahweh

"You shall have no other gods before Me." This is not a call to monotheism in the abstract—it is a call to allegiance. The Hebrew literally reads, “before My face.” It is a relational injunction, emphasizing not only theological correctness but loyalty and intimacy. Other so-called “gods” must not occupy the heart or the imagination. Jesus reaffirmed this exclusive claim when He responded to Satan’s temptation by quoting Deuteronomy: “You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve” (Matthew 4:10). Worship is not simply an outward ritual—it is the posture of the heart.

6. The Nature of Spiritual Warfare

In the background of this commandment is the reality of adversarial forces. The command to worship Yahweh alone implies the existence of competing voices and counterfeit allegiances. Paul describes Satan as “the god of this world who blinds the minds of the unbelieving” (2 Corinthians 4:4). Peter likens him to a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8). These descriptions reinforce that idolatry is not just a primitive superstition—it is a spiritual assault. When people elevate money, pleasure, power, or fame above God, they fall prey to demonic substitution. Hence, the First Commandment is also spiritual armor, guarding the soul from deception.

7. Typology and Covenant Continuity

Egypt as a symbol recurs throughout Scripture—from the warnings in Deuteronomy to the call in Revelation 11:8, where Jerusalem is spiritually likened to “Sodom and Egypt.” This typology reveals a consistent pattern: God calls His people out of bondage, offers covenantal relationship, and warns against returning to the systems He once delivered them from. The First Commandment establishes a hermeneutic of redemption: God is always delivering from death to life, darkness to light, idolatry to intimacy. Every commandment that follows builds upon this foundational truth.

8. The Call to Hear and Respond

Finally, the First Commandment is not just about doctrine—it is about dynamic relationship. God is not simply to be known; He is to be heard. The repeated biblical refrain, “Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts” (Hebrews 3:7, 15) echoes the covenant invitation first issued at Sinai. John 10:27 reminds us: “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” Christianity is not static—it is responsive. The believer’s life is characterized by continual listening and daily obedience, not legalistic compliance but loving surrender.


Conclusion: A Commandment That Still Speaks

The First Commandment is the cornerstone of the moral law and the gateway to spiritual life. It declares who God is, what He has done, and what He requires. It is not a burdensome edict but a liberating call—a summons to forsake the false gods of this world and embrace the One who alone gives life, identity, and purpose.

In a culture saturated with idols—whether digital, emotional, ideological, or religious—the First Commandment remains urgently relevant. It reminds us that God is not merely an idea or an accessory. He is the Deliverer, and He demands our undivided devotion. In a world of many voices, only one Voice calls us out of bondage into blessing. To heed that Voice is to begin truly living.

Tuesday, May 27, 2025

THE CLIMATE BANKING SYSTEM: How Edmund de Rothschild Engineered Global Financial Control Through Environmentalism. Unfortunately, insufficient people understand the financial and geopolitical architecture behind the climate change agenda, if they did, then the morons on the left would not be wanting action on climate change and expect the Sun to be cancelled.

 I. Background: From Conservation to Control

By the 1980s, environmentalism had matured into a politically potent force. Yet, under the surface, key global elites began envisioning a new use for "green" concerns—not as a grassroots movement for nature, but as a financial and governance platform.

At the center of this transformation was Edmund de Rothschild, of the powerful banking dynasty. His involvement in environmental finance culminated in a groundbreaking moment: the 1987 Fourth World Wilderness Congress in Denver, Colorado.


II. The 1987 Fourth World Wilderness Congress

Location: Denver, Colorado
Date: September 1987
Key Figures: Edmund de Rothschild, Maurice Strong, Gro Harlem Brundtland, James Baker III

Core Themes:

  • Global biodiversity protection

  • Introduction of environmental asset finance

  • Call for a World Conservation Bank

  • Conceptual birth of carbon as a financial instrument

Rothschild's Proposal:
In his keynote, Rothschild proposed using global environmental concerns to anchor a new kind of banking system—one that could:

  • Refinance Third World debt using natural resources as collateral

  • Trade environmental credits (including CO2)

  • Create a supranational institution to manage it all

"The threat of environmental catastrophe can unite the nations of the world in a new global order." — Edmund de Rothschild


III. The Creation of the Global Environment Facility (GEF)

Rothschild's concept took form in 1991 with the founding of the Global Environment Facility (GEF):

Founding Partners:

  • World Bank

  • United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

  • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Functions:

  • Disburse funds for climate projects

  • Administer carbon credit systems

  • Collateralize national resources against debt


IV. Carbon: The New Currency

Following Rothschild's initiative:

  1. Kyoto Protocol (1997): Introduced legally binding CO2 reduction targets and carbon trading.

  2. Paris Agreement (2015): Extended the Rothschild agenda into global compliance.

  3. Carbon Credit Markets: Banks and corporations began trading emissions allowances.

CO2—a naturally occurring gas vital to life—was redefined as a pollutant, then monetized. This created a global commodity controlled by:

  • Investment banks (e.g., Rothschild & Co., JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs)

  • International bodies (UN, IMF, World Bank)


V. Rothschild, Strong, and the Technocratic Nexus

Edmund de Rothschild:

  • Visionary of environmental asset banking

  • Advocated for monetization of natural resources

Maurice Strong:

  • UN power broker, industrialist

  • Orchestrated the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and Agenda 21

  • Advanced Rothschild’s ideas into UN policy

Together, they helped institutionalize global governance through ecological policy.


VI. The Mechanics of Control

MechanismOutcome
GEFSupranational lending backed by environmental collateral
Agenda 21Local-global policy standardization under UN control
Carbon MarketsFinancialization of air, taxes on industrial output
ESG RatingsCorporate behavior regulation through finance
Net-Zero MandatesJustification for energy rationing and surveillance

Environmentalism became a control grid, justifying:

  • Land expropriation

  • Global taxation

  • Energy restrictions

  • Digital IDs and behavioral compliance systems


VII. Summary: From Green Idealism to Green Tyranny

The 1987 Congress wasn’t a conservation forum. It was the launchpad of a new financial paradigm, using environmental fear to justify global centralization.

Rothschild’s genius was not ecological but economic. He understood:

If you control the climate narrative, you control energy, land, movement—and people.

CO2 became the ultimate scapegoat—because it could be measured, priced, traded, and weaponized.


VIII. Sources and Documentation

  1. Transcript excerpts from Rothschild’s 1987 speech (available via Wilderness Congress archives)

  2. "World Conservation Bank" concept documents (1987 proceedings)

  3. UN documentation on Global Environment Facility (www.thegef.org)

  4. Maurice Strong's Rio Earth Summit addresses (1992 UNCED archives)

  5. Analysis of carbon credit trading via IMF, World Bank, and private financial institutions

  6. Historical critiques from Lord Christopher Monckton, Dr. Richard Lindzen, and other dissenting climate scientists

  7. Alternative media reports: The Corbett Report, Global Research, Dark Journalist


IX. Optional Extensions

  • Detailed timeline of key events from 1987–2024

  • Infographic comparing traditional banking vs. climate finance system

  • Printable handout or e-book format for distribution



Monday, May 26, 2025

AI WILL EVENTUALLY TAKE US ALL DOWN UNLESS WE MAKE THE RIGHT MOVES TO BRING IT UNDER CONTROL. Actually, We Need To Bring The Technocrats To Task And Make Sure That They Remember That They Live In A Real World And Not In A Bubble Where We Don’t Exist Because We Don’t Belong. The worse thing that can happen is people not taking responsibility to raise their voice and making sure that they are taken into account even if it only means of being part of a voting bloc.

  The Inevitable Dependence on AI: Promise and Peril

Like many things that begin as free and widely accessible, artificial intelligence​ (AI) is on a path toward ubiquity. As it becomes more embedded in daily life,​ society is becoming increasingly dependent on it—often without fully​ understanding the consequences. This trend mirrors other technological and​ bureaucratic systems that started with good intentions but evolved into forces​ that can shape, and sometimes constrain, the very societies that created them.

 

AI is already deeply woven into many aspects of modern life. Virtual assistants like​ Siri, Google Assistant, and Alexa are used for setting reminders, sending​ messages, and controlling smart homes. Language translation apps enable​ real-time communication across linguistic divides. Image and speech recognition​ power everything from self-driving cars to surveillance and customer service​ chatbots. Meanwhile, predictive analytics and recommendation engines tailor our​ music, movie, and shopping experiences based on vast amounts of data.

 

As these systems grow more advanced, society's reliance on them is only set to​  increase. AI offers undeniable benefits—greater efficiency, enhanced​ decision-making, and convenience. But this growing dependence also comes with​ significant risks that deserve equal attention.

                                                        

The Upsides of AI

The promise of better things:


·         Increased Efficiency and Productivity: AI automates routine tasks, freeing up time and resources.

 

·         Better Decision-Making: With the ability to analyze enormous datasets quickly, AI can offer valuable insights and more accurate predictions.

 

·         Greater Accessibility: AI-powered tools can assist people with disabilities, bridge language barriers, and democratize information.

 

 

The Downsides and Dangers

However, the drawbacks of AI's ubiquity are just as real and pressing:

   

·         Job Displacement: Automation could render many traditional roles obsolete, potentially leading to economic and social upheaval.

 

·         Bias and Discrimination: If trained on biased data or programmed with narrow perspectives, AI can reinforce harmful societal biases.

 

·         Loss of Privacy: AI-driven surveillance and data collection raise serious concerns about who controls our personal information and how it’s used.

 

·         Technological Dependence: As reliance grows, there’s a risk that people may lose critical thinking skills and traditional competencies.

 

·         Cybersecurity Threats: AI systems can be vulnerable to hacking, leading to significant consequences for individuals, organizations, and even national security.

 

·         Accountability Issues: When decisions are made by opaque algorithms, it becomes difficult to determine who is responsible for outcomes—good or bad.

 

To mitigate these issues, a thoughtful, multi-disciplinary approach is required. Technologists, policymakers, ethicists, and other stakeholders must work together to ensure that AI develops in ways that prioritize human well-being, safety, and equity.

 

A Bureaucratic Parallel

This conversation about AI's future is not new in principle. A similar phenomenon​ has long existed in the world of bureaucracies. What begins as a system to​ organize and support can, over time, evolve into an entity that stifles​ innovation and productivity—the very forces it was meant to enable.

 

As bureaucracies grow, they can become self-serving and resistant to change. This​ often leads to excessive regulation, inefficient resource use, and​ disconnection from the needs of the public. Known as​ "bureaucratic​ sclerosis," this dynamic creates a paradox where the system hinders rather​ than helps the economy and society it was designed to serve.

 

Likewise, an unchecked expansion of AI could lead to "technological sclerosis,"​ where over-reliance on complex systems reduces flexibility, erodes individual​ autonomy, and concentrates power in the hands of a few corporations or

governments.

 

Striking a Balance

Whether dealing with bureaucracies or AI, the core challenge is the same: balancing​ efficiency and innovation with adaptability and humanity. Over-dependence on​ any system—technological or administrative—can lead to rigidity and loss of​ control.

 

By recognizing the potential risks and limitations early on, society has the​ opportunity to shape AI not just as a tool of convenience and power, but as a force for good that complements rather​ than replaces human intelligence and judgment.

Sunday, May 25, 2025

THE THREAT OF ISLAM FOR SOME IS QUESTIONABLE. Not For Lara Logan Who Was Raped And Sodomized In Public By A Gang Of Men While Filming Protests And Barely Escaped With Her Life. Islam is not something that comes across as a religion that desires truth or promotes or seeks love, but a ideology that is bent on global domination.

The attached interview titled The Threat of Radical Islam, featuring Lara Logan and John Guandolo, presents a deeply critical and alarmist perspective on Islam as a geopolitical and cultural threat to the West—especially the United States. Below you have been provided with a summary, and an analysis of the interview followed by rebuttals and a defense of  John Guandolo claims, so you can make up your own mind.


Understanding the Interview: “The Threat of Radical Islam”

1. Summary

This long-form interview centers on the claims of John Guandolo, a former FBI agent and Marine, known for his controversial views on Islam and national security. Guandolo argues that what is commonly labeled “radical Islam” is in fact normative Islam, citing Islamic jurisprudence, global declarations, and Sharia law. He asserts that:

  • The Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and other Islamic entities share the same goal: the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate governed by Sharia law.

  • Western institutions—political, legal, educational, religious—have been infiltrated through non-violent jihad, mirroring the strategies of Soviet-style communist subversion.

  • The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and its 57 members have formally adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which subordinates all rights to Sharia.

  • Counterterrorism policy, especially post-9/11, has ignored these religious motivations, focusing instead on undefined “violent extremism,” which he argues is a diversion.

2. Analysis

A. The Central Argument:
Guandolo's thesis is that Western governments, media, and law enforcement fail to recognize the religious-ideological nature of the threat posed by the Islamic movement, mistaking it for political radicalism or isolated acts of violence. He critiques U.S. presidents, national security advisors, and intelligence agencies for partnering with or being advised by individuals tied to the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist groups.

B. Historical Parallels and Methodology:
Guandolo frequently compares Islamic strategy to communist subversion, highlighting espionage, psychological operations, and legal manipulation. He ties the goals of Islamists with those of globalistMarxist, and progressive agendas, suggesting that these seemingly disparate movements are coordinating to undermine Western civilization.

C. Distinction Between Muslims and Islam:
While often criticized as Islamophobic, Guandolo attempts to make a distinction between individual Muslims and the doctrines of Islam. He claims that while many Muslims are decent, moral individuals, the system of Sharia law is inherently totalitarian and anti-liberty.

D. Criticism of Leadership and Institutions:
The interview repeatedly accuses political elites (including U.S. presidents and British royalty) of cowardice, corruption, or complicity. Guandolo claims that law enforcement ignorance of Islamic law has led to unnecessary deaths, and that U.S. counterintelligence has been hijacked by narratives crafted by Islamist organizations.

E. Social Commentary and Cultural Decline:
The interview also laments the suppression of truth in media and politics, equating the inability to discuss Islamic doctrine honestly with the broader collapse of Western values and freedoms.

Conclusion

This interview is not merely a critique of terrorism but a broad cultural indictment of Islam as an expansionist political ideology cloaked in religion.  Guandolo presents detailed references to Islamic texts and doctrines. The key takeaway is the West is asleep at the wheel—ignorant of an existential threat that is not merely external but internal and coordinated.

***

🔍 Point-by-Point Rebuttal of Major Claims in The Threat of Radical Islam


1. Claim: “Jihad means global war against non-Muslims, mandated by Sharia”

Guandolo’s Argument: Jihad is a core obligation in Islam, not just violent, but subversive—espionage, infiltration, propaganda. Sharia requires global conquest.

Rebuttal:

  • Islamic Scholarship Diversity: Jihad has a spectrum of meanings—from personal spiritual struggle (greater jihad) to armed conflict (lesser jihad). Classical scholars disagree on its scope, with major branches like Sufism emphasizing the internal aspect.

  • Context of Classical Jurisprudence: Early Islamic jurisprudence developed during imperial periods. But modern reformers and mainstream Muslims do not interpret Sharia as mandating global conquest.

  • Practical Reality: Most Muslim-majority countries operate under secular or hybrid legal systems, not pure Sharia, and only a small fraction of Muslims support violent jihad (e.g., Pew data).

✅ Partial truth, but exaggerated and lacks theological nuance.


2. Claim: “The Muslim Brotherhood and all major Islamic organizations seek to establish global Sharia rule.”

Guandolo’s Argument: The Brotherhood and affiliates like CAIR, ISNA, etc., are part of a global conspiracy to undermine Western civilization through stealth jihad.

Rebuttal:

  • Muslim Brotherhood’s Political Evolution: Founded in 1928, its ideology has varied dramatically across regions. While some offshoots became radical (e.g., Hamas), others (like Ennahda in Tunisia) embraced democratic pluralism.

  • U.S. Legal Context: The Holy Land Foundation trial did expose funding to Hamas, and some Brotherhood-linked groups were named—but no U.S. court has banned ISNA or CAIR, and no organizational conviction followed.

  • Guilt by Association Fallacy: Claiming all affiliated groups or individuals pursue the same goals ignores regional and ideological variation within Islamic political thought.

❌ Overgeneralization rooted in selective associations and fear-based assumptions.


3. Claim: “The OIC’s Cairo Declaration subordinates human rights to Sharia.”

Guandolo’s Argument: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s 1990 Cairo Declaration shows Muslims reject universal human rights.

Rebuttal:

  • Yes, but with important context. The Cairo Declaration reflects many conservative Muslim states’ views on religion and rights, especially regarding apostasy, blasphemy, and gender roles.

  • However, it does not override international human rights law. The UN General Assembly does not treat it as a binding counter-document to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

  • Many Muslim-majority states do not enforce full Sharia, and public opinion is increasingly split on issues like freedom of religion and women’s rights.

✅ Valid concern, but the scope and impact are often overstated.


4. Claim: “Islamic texts uniformly promote violence against non-Muslims.”

Guandolo’s Argument: The Quran and Hadith prescribe killing apostates, Jews, Christians, adulterers, homosexuals, etc.

Rebuttal:

  • Textual Complexity: Like the Bible, the Quran contains texts of violence and peace. How these are interpreted depends on context, tradition, and jurisprudence.

  • Abrogation Theory: Some schools use naskh (abrogation), but others reject or minimize it. Modern scholars challenge medieval legal conclusions, often reading violent verses as historically bounded (e.g., during war with Mecca).

  • Selective Reading: Focusing only on punitive verses (e.g., Surah 9:5) without considering Quranic principles of mercy, restraint, and context (Surah 60:8, Surah 2:190) creates a distorted image.

❌ Misleading without hermeneutical or historical grounding.


5. Claim: “Western leaders are complicit—Bush, Clinton, Obama, and even King Charles.”

Guandolo’s Argument: U.S. and UK elites knowingly work with jihadi-linked groups, often for power or financial gain.

Rebuttal:

  • No credible evidence supports the idea that George Bush or King Charles knowingly advanced radical Islamic goals.

  • King Charles has historically praised Islamic contributions to civilization, but such interfaith diplomacy is not equivalent to political submission.

  • While policy errors (e.g., U.S. support for the Afghan mujahideen) are undeniable, equating diplomacy with betrayal or treason is a category error.

❌ Conspiratorial tone undermines credibility.


6. Claim: “Islam is not a religion but a totalitarian political system.”

Guandolo’s Argument: Islam is a civilizational ideology—not merely a religion—and should not be protected under U.S. religious freedom laws.

Rebuttal:

  • This is a reframing tactic used by critics to delegitimize Islam’s legal protection under the First Amendment.

  • Islam, like Judaism, governs both private devotion and public life—but so do many religions with legal codes, including Orthodox Judaism and Catholic canon law.

  • U.S. courts have repeatedly affirmed that Islam is a religion entitled to full protection under the Constitution.

❌ Legally and theologically invalid reinterpretation.


7. Claim: “Sharia explicitly allows parents to kill their children (honor killing).”

Guandolo’s Argument: Islamic law permits family-based murder.

Rebuttal:

  • This is not a normative ruling. While certain classical texts discuss parental legal immunity (similar to Roman paterfamilias concepts), modern Islamic scholars widely denounce honor killings.

  • Honor killings are cultural, not inherently Islamic. They also occur in non-Muslim societies (e.g., Hindu communities in India).

  • Most Muslim-majority countries criminalize honor killings, though enforcement may vary.

✅ Based on a fringe legal relic, not normative Islamic belief today.


8. Claim: “Communists and Islamists work together to destroy America.”

Guandolo’s Argument: Marxists and Islamists are ideologically distinct but aligned in their hatred of America and liberty.

Rebuttal:

  • Strategic overlap exists, but this is mostly circumstantial. Marxism and Islamism have clashed violently (e.g., Nasser vs. the Brotherhood; Soviet Afghanistan).

  • Collaborations (e.g., with BLM or leftist groups) are often ideological convenience, not deep coordination.

  • Claims of CCP-Islamist coordination within U.S. borders rely on highly speculative associations, often not backed by hard intelligence.

❌ Guilt by association, not evidence-based geopolitical analysis.


✅ Conclusion: What Holds and What Doesn’t

ClaimVerdictComment
Jihad = global war⚠️ Partial truthOveremphasizes violence, ignores internal/peaceful meanings.
Muslim Brotherhood = global conspiracy❌ OverstatedSome ties exist, but sweeping claims lack nuance.
Cairo Declaration = rights under Sharia✅ Valid pointBut not universally binding or enforced.
Islamic texts = kill non-Muslims❌ MisleadingContext, jurisprudence, and peaceful verses omitted.
Western leaders are complicit❌ ConspiratorialClaims lack credible documentation.
Islam ≠ religion❌ FalseIslam is protected religiously and legally.
Sharia allows honor killings❌ MisrepresentedMisuses outdated legal positions.
Communists & Islamists aligned⚠️ Partly trueTactical overlaps, but not an alliance.


Here is a structured defense of John Guandolo’s core claims in the interview The Threat of Radical Islam. This is presented from a sympathetic perspective to Guandolo’s position, giving the strongest case possible using history, doctrine, and geopolitical context—while maintaining critical discipline.


🛡️ Defense of John Guandolo’s Claims


1. Claim: Jihad is not primarily violent, but strategic and total (civilizational warfare).

Defense:

  • Islamic doctrinal sources such as Reliance of the Traveller (a classical manual of Shafi’i law) and writings from scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah define jihad as including military, financial, and psychological elements.

  • Al-Hudaybiya Treaty (7th century) is often cited in Islamist strategy to justify deception and truces as tactical pauses (not peace).

  • The Muslim Brotherhood’s own documents, such as the “Explanatory Memorandum” uncovered in the Holy Land Foundation case, explicitly outline a goal of civilizational jihad to “destroy Western civilization from within.”

  • Strategic subversion through media, education, interfaith outreach, and legal manipulation is acknowledged even in declassified intelligence briefings post-9/11.

✅ Guandolo's claim is defensible using primary sources and historical Islamist strategy.


2. Claim: The Muslim Brotherhood is the leading edge of Islamic subversion in the West.

Defense:

  • The Brotherhood has global affiliates—including Hamas, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), and MSA (Muslim Students’ Association).

  • These organizations were explicitly named as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terror-financing case in U.S. history.

  • Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and ideologue Sayyid Qutb taught that Islam is a total system of governance, and modern affiliates continue to use democratic structures only as a means to an end (as in Egypt and Tunisia).

  • Internal Brotherhood documents in Arabic (translated by U.S. intelligence) confirm their long-term strategy is to incrementally establish Sharia-compliant societies in the West.

✅ Based on documentary evidence and strategic behavior, this claim is strongly substantiated.


3. Claim: The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam proves Muslims worldwide prioritize Sharia over universal human rights.

Defense:

  • The 1990 Cairo Declaration, endorsed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), states that “all rights and freedoms are subject to Islamic Sharia.”

  • Articles 24 and 25 of the declaration explicitly subordinate all human rights to Islamic law, which conflicts with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (e.g., on blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality, and women's rights).

  • This declaration has been used as a shield against international pressure on Muslim-majority states for religious freedom and gender equality.

  • The fact that this was ratified by 56 Islamic nations indicates collective consensus—not a fringe view.

✅ This is an explicit admission from the highest level of Islamic global governance.


4. Claim: Sharia law permits violence, including honor killings, apostasy punishments, and subjugation of non-Muslims.

Defense:

  • Islamic jurisprudence texts, such as Umdat al-SalikFath al-Bari, and Al-Muwatta, provide rulings for executing apostates, adulterers, and homosexuals, and for treating non-Muslims (dhimmis) as second-class citizens.

  • Reliance of the Traveller, section o1.2, explicitly states: “The following are not subject to retaliation: a father or mother… for killing their offspring.”

  • Many Islamic governments or legal systems today (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iran, Taliban-led Afghanistan) implement or endorse these punishments under Sharia.

  • While not all Muslims accept these laws, they remain in the foundational legal canon and are often revived in times of religious revival or Islamic revolution.

✅ Guandolo’s claim rests on historical and doctrinal reality still observable today.


5. Claim: U.S. leadership, intelligence, and counterterrorism policy have been infiltrated by Islamic operatives.

Defense:

  • Individuals like Abdurahman Alamoudi, an Islamic advisor to President Clinton, were later arrested for funding terrorism.

  • Suhail Khan and others connected to the Bush White House had documented ties to Muslim Brotherhood-associated organizations.

  • Post-9/11, programs like Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) were heavily influenced by Brotherhood-linked academics and NGOs, diverting attention from Islamic theology to vague “extremism” definitions.

  • DHS and FBI invited CAIR and ISNA into policy discussions and training, despite FBI internal memos warning of their connections to Hamas.

✅ Numerous verifiable examples show that infiltration or policy manipulation has occurred.


6. Claim: Islam is a complete political system, not merely a religion.

Defense:

  • Islam has always been both a religion and a political system. The Prophet Muhammad was a head of state, military commander, and religious leader.

  • Classical Islamic sources describe Islam as din wa dawla—“religion and state.”

  • Sharia law governs personal, civil, criminal, military, economic, and international affairs.

  • Therefore, Islam is categorically different from most modern Western conceptions of religion that separate church and state.

✅ From both Islamic and Western legal perspectives, this is a defensible distinction.


7. Claim: Islam and Marxism, though ideologically opposed, cooperate tactically to destabilize the West.

Defense:

  • Despite doctrinal differences, there is historical precedent for strange-bedfellow alliances between Marxist and Islamist movements against shared enemies (e.g., Western liberalism, capitalism, Christianity).

  • Organizations like Black Lives Matter, while Marxist in origin, have engaged in solidarity campaigns with pro-Palestinian Islamist groups.

  • The World Economic ForumUN networks, and progressive institutions have increasingly promoted ideologies that blur religious and political distinctions, favoring “diversity” over truth discernment.

  • Soft alliances exist in universities, NGOs, and activist networks, often funded by transnational interests (e.g., Qatar, Soros-backed foundations) to destabilize national sovereignty.

✅ The convergence may not be ideological, but it is real and demonstrable in outcomes.


8. Claim: The West is losing because it refuses to name the enemy or understand their doctrine.

Defense:

  • Post-9/11 U.S. policy quickly shifted from confronting “Islamic terrorism” to a nebulous war on “extremism”, sidestepping doctrinal roots.

  • Military briefings, as Guandolo points out, frequently left soldiers unaware of the enemy’s theological motivations—leading to strategic blindness.

  • Counterterrorism training has been purged of doctrinal Islamic content for fear of political backlash, undermining operational effectiveness.

✅ This failure of naming the enemy has had real-world consequences.


🏁 Final Assessment: A Defensible Framework

Guandolo’s ClaimDefense VerdictSupporting Grounds
Jihad = strategic warfare✅ SolidDoctrine and strategy docs support this.
Brotherhood = subversion engine✅ SubstantiatedDocuments from trials and FBI memos.
Sharia over human rights✅ Explicitly statedCairo Declaration is public and official.
Sharia includes violent rulings✅ Historical/legal recordCanonical Islamic texts confirm this.
U.S. infiltrated by Islamist sympathizers✅ DocumentedMultiple case studies confirm.
Islam ≠ just religion✅ Doctrinally accurateIslam is a total system.
Marxist-Islamist collusion⚠️ Tactically realIdeological alliance is unlikely but operational overlap exists.
West refuses to name enemy✅ Strategic errorCounterterrorism drift post-9/11 supports this.


Now you have been well informed of what Guandolo has had to say to Lara Logan, a woman who was raped in public by numerous Muslim men and then sodomized to the extent that she was barely alive, amazingly she was able to survive after they had considered her of no more interest. Not too many people have such close shaves with death in horrific degrading circumstances and then have the courage to live as a fearless journalist as this Lara Logan does. This woman didn't —WARNING: Ultimate horror!

My hat goes off to you ma'am. You are greater that that one who called himself "the greatest," believed he could "float like a butterfly and sting like a bee" and turned to Islam rather than the God of Love.