Wednesday, July 23, 2014

When a single issue SHOULD derail a candidate’s campaign…

A friend suggested I take a look at a “promising” Republican presidential candidate, Kerry Bowers.  So I did.  I went to his website at http://kerrybowers.com/index.html and looked over some of his belief and platform statements.

I noticed there was nothing mentioned about either national security or Islam (the primary reasons the US is spending billions of dollars per year and causing massive heartburn with regard to government invasion of privacy).  These are the same omissions I noticed about Obama early on in his first presidential campaign.  This void caused me to send Mr. Bowers the following email asking him his views on these  oddly avoided topics:

From:  Me

Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 11:27 AM
To:
Kerry@KerryBowers.com
Subject: Info

I read much of your website with interest.

I notice there was no specific mention of Islam or National Security, both hot buttons related to foreign policy.

What is your view of Islam, or the threat it may pose to the West, to Christianity, or to the US specifically?

Do you believe the historic, orthodox ideology breeds the "radicals", or the "radicals" are being "un-Islamic."

Thanks,

A week or so later I received the following reply posted below in its entirety.  His first two paragraphs do not relate specifically to the topic of Islam (I dimmed the font), but the balance of his comments do:

Kerry Bowers via eigbox.net

Greetings Mr._______,

First, thank you for taking the time to begin reading the material I have provided on my website and thank you too for your inquiry.  I believe the number one priority of the Federal Government is to provide for the defense of the nation, something I devoted 30 years of my life to as an officer in the US Air Force and would continue to do as the nation’s executive servant. I addressed in the documents ‘Introduction’ and ‘Foreign Policy,’ accessible from my website, both my principal and principled ideas on the threats and the strategy I propose to engage them when diplomacy is exhausted.  I invite you to review those if you have not and, hopefully, they will answer your question about my focus on national security.  Bottom line, this nation will be protected from all threats to the extent it can be through both defensive and offensive operations inclusive of preemptive attacks against unquestionable war- or terror-postured threats. Time and the vastness of an ocean are no longer on our side to react with a defensive response alone to every conceivable threat, leaving preemption as the least favored but perhaps best option. 

Let me say too, I will not violate the 4th amendment right of our citizens to be secure in their persons, papers, houses and effects to the extent I believe they have been violated under the Patriot Act, among other measures since 911. Freedom comes with a certain amount of risk to security and I will work to achieve the proper balance between risk and lawful surveillance.           

With respect to religion, does religion breed terror or is it the individual criminals of humanity who beckon or force the vulnerable to follow them under the banner of a particular religion to achieve their own agenda?  I have read the Quran, cover-to-cover, as a military officer trying to understand the threat and I have not been drawn to be an Islam-proclaiming terrorist.  In fact, it drew me closer to Christianity for what Christianity holds for me over that of Islam, and to make that statement is not a condemnation of Islam. So, is it Islam from which the terror rises or the tyranny from the inability to decide for oneself when forced into a form of subservience under the banner of Islam?  I tend to think the latter is true as has been demonstrated throughout history under more banners than that of just Islam.    

I reflect on the atrocities committed under the banners of Christianity and particularly between Catholics and Protestants over the last millennia?  Did the banner of Christianity and our New Testament create the terror or did those few with an agenda indifferent to Christ create the terror and leave no reasonable option to the pawns of their tyranny?    

Perhaps the greatest fundamental threat to our nation today is not from Islam, but from the increasing exclusion of Judeo-Christian values, the very same upon which our nation was founded.  If we exclude those values, then we create a void to which evil may evolve and under any banner it so chooses to raise above those vulnerable to such demagoguery.          

It will be my responsibility as the nation’s executive servant to protect the right of every individual to practice their religion (or none) as they desire, but within the confines of the Constitution and other laws that may apply.  

I apologize for the brevity and some reflective questions to answer questions, but, hopefully, I have satisfactorily responded and given you some confidence of my focus on these issues.  Thank you again for your questions and your interest in this campaign to Restore America’s Blessings.

Sincerely,

Kerry                          

His comments on Islam and the Qur’an  reflect a shallow, naïve,  inaccurate, and dangerous understanding of that ideology.  His gloss-over is as naïve as calling Nazism a neutral, peace-loving ideology highjacked by a few radicals as Hitler was rolling through Austria in the late 30’s.  Except Islam is worse because there is a psychotic religious component and 1,400 years of cultural perversion behind it.

I found Mr. Bowers portrayal of Islam so far removed from reality that I had to reply.  And so I did.  His comments are in quotes.  My responses are in white:

From: Me

To: Kerry

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Yes, I see that you address "national security" more or less indirectly through your other topics.

I do have something to add with regard to your approach to Islam and the Qur'an.  I will address your comments in the context of your paragraphs, below:

"With respect to religion, does religion breed terror or is it the individual criminals of humanity who beckon or force the vulnerable to follow them under the banner of a particular religion to achieve their own agenda?"

My own 13 years of study and writing about Islam, learning intently from experts such as Robert Spencer, Bill Warner, Andrew McCarthy, and a number of former Muslim terrorists, and observing the actions and motivations of virtually thousands of so-called "radicals", many of whom were thought to be "moderate", I am firmly convinced that in the case of Islam, it indeed breeds what we call criminal and psychotic behaviors.  Islam both reflects and forms the culture.  The Islamic culture has a radically different morality from Judeo-Christianity.   Today's Islamic radicals reflect the behaviors, pronouncements, and teachings of Muhammad. These teachings promote Jew hatred, abuse of women, lying and deception (taqiyya), intolerance and violent supremacism.  These behaviors are integral to the orthodox and most popular interpretations of the Islamic trilogy today.

"I have read the Quran, cover-to-cover, as a military officer trying to understand the threat and I have not been drawn to be an Islam-proclaiming terrorist."

I am pleased for you that reading the Qur'an did not draw you to be an Islam-proclaiming terrorist.  However, your above statement makes it clear you understood neither what you read, nor the influence of what you read on over a billion souls, sadly.  To proclaim something that you do not understand to be "harmless" takes a lot of faith.  Why is there no other religion that instigates so much violence, terror and hate by such a huge margin, in the name of Islam, as Islam?  To ignore this disparity is to practice self-deceptive moral equivalency.

"In fact, it drew me closer to Christianity for what Christianity holds for me over that of Islam, ..."

For the Christianized western mind, that would be the expected outcome.

"...and to make that statement is not a condemnation of Islam."

That is because you do not yet understand Islam.

"So, is it Islam from which the terror rises or the tyranny from the inability to decide for oneself when forced into a form of subservience under the banner of Islam?  I tend to think the latter is true as has been demonstrated throughout history under more banners than that of just Islam."

It is Islam from which the terror rises.  The "banner of Islam" is what Islam has taught for 1,400 years.  Islam has been awakening from a century of slumber and is becoming what it was meant to be.  We are seeing an Islamic reformation - it is reforming itself back to its violent, intolerant roots.

“I reflect on the atrocities committed under the banners of Christianity and particularly between Catholics and Protestants over the last millennia?  Did the banner of Christianity and our New Testament create the terror or did those few with an agenda indifferent to Christ create the terror and leave no reasonable option to the pawns of their tyranny?”

You have reasoned yourself into a bad case of moral equivalency that does not exist.  If you understood the Islamic trilogy and tradition, you would understand that today's Muslim leadership (both the mythical "moderates" as well as the mainstream "radicals") are faithful to the historic spirit of orthodox Islam.  To compare that to atrocities of Christians who deviated 180 degrees from orthodox Christianity is making a comparison that is at odds with reality.

"Perhaps the greatest fundamental threat to our nation today is not from Islam, but from the increasing exclusion of Judeo-Christian values, the very same upon which our nation was founded.  If we exclude those values, then we create a void to which evil may evolve and under any banner it so chooses to raise above those vulnerable to such demagoguery."

Loss of our Christian compass and the rise of Islam go hand in hand.  A giant void is being filled by evil.

One of the greatest disservices to our nation ever committed by a sitting president (except for Obama's entire term of office) was committed by George Bush a day after 9-11 when he proclaimed that "Islam is a religion of peace."  You appear to be following in his footsteps.

Thank you for your reply and your willingness to be transparent in your positions.  An educated electorate is our best hope.

Sincerely,

Me

Mr. Bowers, while articulate with (I assume) good intentions, should be an example for all of us of how a single issue – a single snafu of understanding and logic – in this case his Pollyanna-esque understanding of Islam – should disqualify a candidate from election to public office.

He could be the most wonderful man, the most fiscally conservative human to walk the planet.  But if he refuses to understand Islam, what it is, how it works, what it wants – and the fact that the people who call themselves “Muslim”  generally agree with that evil –that should be a deal-killer for any intelligent voter.

Sadly and outrageously, Mr. Bowers is repeating what our military is promoting to its flag officers concerning Islam:  That Islam is not the problem – it is the “radicals” who misunderstand Islam and distort it.” 

No.  No. No!  Islam is not being distorted by radicals.   Islam is creating the radicals - making radicals of Islam’s most devout followers.  Islam is the root of the evil.  And don’t be deceived into believing the “moderate” Muslims are benign.  Most of the higher profile “moderates” have been found to side with terrorist groups and vile Islamic doctrine every bit as faithfully as the so-called radicals.

Our military leaders are being reeducated to tolerate the intolerable and intolerant – Islam.  That has GOT to change, and a Commander-in-Chief like Mr. Bowers will not do that.

Monday, July 21, 2014

Church: Relevant or Relevant?

The loss of interest in attending church, especially among young people, has a variety of causes.  One of the causes is “relevance.”

But the term “relevance” has a wide variety of meanings in the context of connecting church with people.  Some definitions are positive; others negative.  Here is a list of possible meanings.

“Relevance” as applied to the church is listed in order of usefulness in accurately and persuasively presenting the Biblical message:

  1. World view-centered content:  Messages and teachings of the church containing timely real life examples, situations, and people outside the church that provide a meaningful backdrop for presenting or contrasting a Biblical world view.  These examples may include other world religions and ideologies, government policies, economics, wars, cultural oddities and snafu’s and other timely topics.  This approach offers numerous opportunities for tying in news and current events into virtually any Biblical teaching.
  2. Personal needs-centered content:  This form of relevance is more ego-centric, or self centered and deals with the personal needs and infirmities of the congregation.   This is inward focused relevance compared to the outward focused relevance of 1, above.
  3. Pop culture style: Pop culture in the form of pop music (rock, rap, hip hop – with feel good Christian-sounding lyrics) and casual “pop” attire, in a sterile, modern setting, is another, albeit negative, form of relevance.  This is thought to be necessary by many churches to attract the younger un-churched.
  4. Pop culture content:  The content of the messages and teachings are in accord with the popular secular mood swings of the day, most often including acceptance of homosexuality as normal, the “right” of abortion, the normalcy of gay marriage, and the idea that every religion is an ok path to God, with “god” being whatever you want to believe him, her, or it to be.

The above definitions of church relevance degrade from the most mature and Biblical (1. World View-centered content) to the least mature and Biblical (4. Pop culture content). 

Personal needs-centered content (#2) is appropriate as a part of most services, but should not dominate the messages and teachings.  But it does.  An inward, self-centered focus of the church service is what I have experienced in the majority of churches I have attended.

The reasons people of all ages stop going to church vary widely.  At root is church being viewed as an irrelevant lower priority.   Most of those who do attend do so for self-centered and superficial reasons:  To “feel good”; to be entertained, etc. 

That is why few churches focus on worship and teaching that focuses on a Biblical world view – an understanding and application of God’s Word to our lives that is increasingly foreign to our pop culture.   “World view-centered content” is rarely offered.  Consequently, the Gospel message is muted without this Biblical world view focus.  The Biblical world view contrasted against other ruling principles of life is the back drop necessary to provide context to the Gospel message.  As the old saying goes, “a text without a context is a pretext.”  Translated:  The gospel message is a meaningless pretext without the context of timely, significant current events and cultural anomalies required to grab our attention and to provide a context.  The Bible did it.  Why don’t pastors?

Sunday, July 20, 2014

I may be an odd duck…

image

I may just be an odd duck.  I may be an odd duck with odd expectations of the messages and prayers during typical church services.

Over the previous week there have been several world-shaking events taking place and continuing.

Israel, the home of persecuted Jews, the cradle of Christianity and our best ally in the Middle East has been pummeled with hundreds of rockets from Muslim Gaza and is in a fight for its survival as a nation and as a people.  There are demonstrations around the world by Muslims who wish the elimination of Israel and who profess their hatred of Jews.

Russia shot down a Malaysian aircraft over Eastern Ukraine as part of its war of division among the Ukrainians.  Hundreds of lives were lost.

Central American cartels and governments are encouraging families to be split up by sending their children to the United States for an imagined “better life”.  This “better life” creates danger, uncertainty and fear for the children, encourages violation of our laws, creates havoc at our borders, and drains our own limited resources.

Every day, churches are burned, Christian families are martyred and Muslim converts to Christianity are killed – by Muslims.

The church service I attended today did not have one prayer, not one mention in the church bulletin, not one word in the sermon about any of the people impacted or terrible situations going on in the world today.  This odd duck found this to be strange.

So this odd duck felt a need to perform a reality check, thinking that today might possibly be “ignore the World Sunday” on the church calendar.

Odd duck called several friends who he knew attended several different churches in the area.  Here are the results:

Friend one:  His church did not say one peep about any of the above events, either.  Wow, I thought to myself.  Maybe there is such a thing as “ignore the World Sunday” on the church calendar.

Friend two:  Her church included a brief mention of a couple of these events during their corporate prayer time.

Friend three:  His church also mentioned these events in their prayer time.  But he explained that they don’t want to scare people away by dwelling too long on what is going on in the world from a Christian perspective.

All three of the responses to my odd duck survey confirmed that I am indeed an odd duck in my expectations for church services.  I confirmed that while today may not be a total and absolute “ignore the World Sunday” on the church calendar, it appears to be a quasi ignore-the-World-Sunday.

The troubling thing to this odd duck is that most Sundays in church seem to be pretty much the same way.  Ignore what is going on in the world.  Ignore the impact on and influence of Christianity in the world.  Ignore the impact and potential impact of Christians in the world.  Ignore the mention of the will of God in world affairs.  Ignore trying to express the will of God for the world in our prayers and our messages.  The huge majority of all messages appear to be focused inward, focused on ourselves as if we all require repetitious self-gratifying, narcissistic messages.

I do not know the extent to which the denominations of these various churches require strict adherence to their stock topics and scripts. But it seems odd that there is no provision for deviation from the stock topics when current events would warrant.  And worse, if there is latitude given for deviation from the script or topic why pastors do not take advantage of those situations to create an impactful relevance to their Biblical message.  Why create an imaginary made up “hook” or attention grabber at the beginning of the message when real life hooks are all around us that will and do impact us in real and significant ways.

Ahh, but odd duck, we don’t want to talk “politics” during the service.  News flash!  All of life is politics: The tension between personal autonomy and larger social forces.  All of the Bible is about politics.  The backdrop for the Gospel message was all about world events and politics of the day.   If the Bible limited itself to the topics the church limits itself today, its shelf life would have been no longer than that of a dime store novel. 

To this odd duck, the repetition of the message of the Gospel Sunday after Sunday loses its impact and becomes mundane when its context and relevance to current events and the world’s challenges to Christianity are ignored.

Yours truly,

Odd duck.

Friday, July 18, 2014

Coincidence that Putin informed Obama of downed plane during phone call about US sanctions?

Here is an interesting and possible scenario concerning the motivation for firing on the Malaysian aircraft that addresses the question:

Was the downing of the passenger plane a random error of judgment by Russian separatists or a premeditated, deliberate act by Russia?

First, the background facts:

At Putin's request, Putin and Obama arranged to be on the phone to discuss US sanctions against Russia relating to Russia’s incursion into Ukraine. – FACT   http://www.ibtimes.com/mh17-crash-obama-putin-discuss-malaysia-airlines-plane-crash-phone-call-over-ukraine-1631764  It can be assumed that Putin established the timing of the call.

During the phone conversation, Putin expressed his displeasure with US sanctions on Russia (the Russian elite).  The final words of Putin during that phone conversation informed Obama that a Malaysian passenger plane crashed over Ukraine. - FACT   http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/22688

US and Ukraine intelligence reveal that Russian” advisors” fired the missiles that downed the plane.   FACT  http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/18/smoking-gun-intercepted-calls-point-finger-in-jet-downing-at-russian/

Putin is seeking ways to retaliate against the US for US sanctions against Russia – FACT        http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/18/putin-set-to-retaliate-against-obama-by-trashing-iran-deal.html

Putin has expressed his revulsion toward homosexulaity in Russia by saying Russia must cleanse itself of homosexuality – FACT   http://www.cbsnews.com/news/putin-russia-must-cleanse-itself-of-homosexuality/

Aids is known to have initially spread through the human population through homosexual behavior and continues to be spread primarily through that behavior - FACT.  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/epidemic-1-2-of-gay-men-will-have-hiv-by-age-50-if-current-rates-continue-w  and HERE.

As many as 100 people heading to the AIDS 2014 conference in Melbourne were on the doomed flight -  FACT   http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/07/18/aids-community-mourns-as-leading-experts-feared-killed-in-downed-plane/

It is likely that the Ground to Air Missile System used to take down the Malaysian plane was removed back to Russia – FACT   http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/19/malaysia-air-crash-missile-launcher-used-to-down-jet-likely-back-in-russia-us/

Based on the above 8 sets of facts, the following represents a reasonable scenario:

The shoot-down by Russian “advisors” in eastern Ukraine was a planned action, not an accident.  It served two purposes which could not be passed up: 

1) It was timed to impress Obama during Putin's phone call to him. The shoot-down demonstrated to Obama that any further sanctions, or even persistence of existing sanctions by the US on Russia will result in Russia renewing or reinvigorating its support of Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and perhaps actions equal to the downing of the Malaysian aircraft, or worse.  This whole episode is a pretext in the context of Russia’s natural predisposition to support Iran against the West.

2) It served Russia’s anti-homosexual agenda as a bonus.

Or was the missile firing at that particular plane at that particular moment merely just an unfortunate accident?

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

The US in 2050: Would we want to live here?

35 years from now, few people over the age of 50 today will exist.  Thirty somethings today will be 65.  Teenagers will be in their 50’s.  Newborns in their 30’s.

90% of kids today spend  more than 70% of their waking hours in public schools and public and private universities being indoctrinated in liberal and Godless ideologies.  Morality will become more and more “relative”, e.g. “situational.”  For example, can we kill others?  Sure, if it benefits society (which can be very problematic.)  So, abortions and birth control will be the norm, and euthanasia will flourish for the elderly and sickly.  The normalization of homosexual relationships will further erode birthrates.  Birth rates among native born Americans will plummet.  A rapid change in cultural “norms” will stress cultural transition and relations. 

Immigration standards will be relaxed and amnesty will be granted without requiring any significant indoctrination into American history, culture or government.  Not just the great numbers of immigrants, but their lack of education, their attitudes and motivation will overwhelm our service systems and financial capacity.  Government handouts will become a greater motivation to immigrate than work.  Assimilation will be neither desired nor encouraged among the newcomers.    See “Baby Democrats” HERE.

Today’s minorities - Latinos, blacks, Muslims – will become the majority.  Whites, Christians, western Europeans will become the minority.

The Judeo-Christian underpinnings that served our nations founding and its 200 years of prosperity and civil behavior will be long forgotten, erased from our history books and our collective memories.

If political correctness continues on its current track, be careful about expressing yourself.  Do you have a conservative view of economics, government, religion, or life in general than the progressive “mainstream?”  Do you encourage or promote Judeo-Christian moral standards? If so, gird yourself for persecution.  You will be subject to being marginalized in our culture in a number of ways:  Loss of job, loss of reputation, fines, penalties, and imprisonment.  Being labeled “bigot” and “intolerant” will be mild compared to the new version of “tolerance” promoted in 2050 America.  We are seeing the beginnings of this today.  See the new book “God less America.”

Today the practical policies of Republicans and Democrats are barely distinguishable (despite the rhetoric), only by degrees:  Degrees of excessive taxation, regulation, and government largess to special interests.  Most of our working age population will lose most of their incentive to work.  We will be conditioned to game the system.  National productivity will plummet.  Work ethic?  What’s that?

By 2050 we will rival 3rd world nations economically, or, at best, we will mirror today’s struggling Eurozone nations.  In 35 years (if we survive that long as a nation) we will have given away the government farm, so to speak.  We will not only lose much of our identity as a nation, but our government will submit itself to international control – the “one world” government that many of our leaders have promoted since the 50’s and which most are promoting today, either consciously or unconsciously.  The vested financial interests of too many of our leaders lie outside of our nation.  Our national borders will be no more than the boundaries of taxation and census zones.  Promoting nationalism or national autonomy will be contrary to federal policy. 

We will, by 2050, have gone through several severe austerity programs in the manner of recent Greece and Italy fiascos.  As a consequence of having to reduce government entitlements (in this case excessive government largess that bankrupted our nation), we will see periods of sustained urban rioting.  There may be periods when political factions call up militias, where states call up the national guard, where our military is called upon to suppress an angry citizenry, or  where rogue units of our military attempt to thwart an out of control authoritarian government.

This chaos is likely to result in some regional balkanization (northeast/Midwest/south/north central/far west) or rural regions vs. urbanized zones.  There may be some point where either the “haves/have nots” or the “patriots*/progressives*” become polarized to the point of creating their own mini-states or enclaves, formal or informal.  The “have nots” are likely to be the aggressors against the “haves.”  The “patriots” will be subject to legal sanctions by the “progressives” to the point of patriot rebellions of various sorts, a la the Boston Tea Party of old.

Living in the US in 2050 will be like living in Rome in the early 400’s.  See HERE.

Dinesh D’Souza’s movie “America” asks us to imagine the world without her.  Now we can imagine an America without the America as we knew her.

_____________________

*Patriots:  Comprised of fiscal and social conservatives, devout Christians and Jews, most libertarians, most hard workers and entrepreneurs, and those who feel strongly about preserving the US Constitution.

*Progressives:  Comprised of liberals, Communists, hippie types, Muslims, most of academia, most uneducated, and those who rely on the government to maintain their style of living (either employees or welfare recipients.)

Friday, July 11, 2014

Federal government doled out millions to churches as part of plan for invasion of illegals

Between Dec 2010 and Nov 2013, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Galveston received $15,549,078 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Project” with a program description of “Refugee and Entry Assistance.” -

See more HERE: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/07/exclusive-hhs-bankrolled-catholic-and-baptist-church-from-2010-to-2013-to-prepare-for-obamas-2014-invasion/?Ref_ID=27061#sthash.MJR92Hwj.dpuf

The Catholic Church in the US (and apparently some Baptist churches) seem to be in the government’s pocket almost as much as the German Church of the 30’s.

This is just more evidence that we have an impeachment-worthy president leading the revolution against America.  Even worse, we likely have this destructive mindset rampant throughout the leadership of many agencies of the Federal Government.  I am not confident that a minor “housecleaning” will fix this.

NEW:  Here is an excellent investigative synopsis of this situation given by Diana West:  http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2874/Its-Not-a-Crisis-Its-a-National-Emergency.aspx

Monday, July 07, 2014

Costco Squelches Free Speech…

Time to look for alternative places to save a buck…

  • Sam’s Club
  • BJ’s
  • Wal-Mart
  • Amazon
  • Harbor Freight

Any place but Costco.

Costco has declared war on conservatives and patriots.  They ordered the removal of all copies of Dinesh D’Souza’s book,  “America:  Imagine the World Without Her”  from their stores.  This book just happens to be Amazon’s #1 best seller in the category of “political commentary and opinion.”

Read more about this HERE.

Costco is a big fan of Obama.  A big contributor.  Costco, like a majority of dumbed down Americans, cares more about personality and “cool” than they do about their country and the things that made us a good and great nation.

Costco declared war against free speech because they admire Obama so much.  They have done what Obama, deep down, would love to do:  Eliminate the Constitution and eradicate diverse opinion.  For a government hell bent on promoting diversity including Islam, Sharia, Muslim Brotherhood, gays, transgenders, communists, and abortionist, this pair, Costco and Obama, sure seem to be easily offended by diversity they disagree with.

I need to stop typing now so I don’t belch all over my keyboard.

Monday, June 23, 2014

Why US Iraq and Middle East Policy will FAIL…

We keep hearing from “experts” in the State Department and Obama himself that Maliki's failure to be “inclusive” of all Islamic sects motivates the so-called “radical” opposition such as ISIS.  They believe that much of the popular support ISIS enjoys would evaporate if only the Iraqi government would include all Islamic sects into their elusive democracy.  So we are now pressuring Maliki to include all Islamic sects, including the ill-named “radicals” into equal partnership in governing a Pollyanna-esque Iraq.

There are a number of problems with this scenario.  Where to start.

First is the delusion of most leaders within the US administration, both Obama’s and Bush’s, that Islam is, overall, a “religion of peace.”  Only when Islam is subdued is it a religion of peace.  It has been subdued by western powers during brief periods of its existence – most recently for several decades prior to the 1960’s.  When it is in its ascendency, as is currently the case, it is not feeling subdued.  It is expansionist.  It is following the aggressive pattern of intimidation and conquest that has been its staple from its Muhammadan inception in 630 AD.

Those our administration and media call “radicals” are NOT radicals.  They are Islamic.  They are not radical relative to orthodox Islam.  They are doing as Islam teaches.

Second, look at the inclusiveness in Egypt that Obama attempted to impose on the Egyptian government with the overthow of Mubarak.  The Egyptian population and military painfully discovered that the Muslim Brotherhood was not civil enough to be included in their government and has since declared it a “terror organization.”

Now Obama and his other defenders of orthodox Islam are attempting the same game in Iraq:  Forcing the Maliki government to include Islamic purists into a governing partnership.  What we fail to recognized is that the world is in a period of orthodox Islamic resurgence where significant momentum has been established within the Islamic sphere of influence to impose orthodox Islam on, first, its own populations, and next, on the rest of us.  Honest US Muslim experts quote surveys that confirm that the overwhelming majority of Muslims support the orthodox Islamic agenda.  And most of those are NOT intimidated into that support and belief.  It is ingrained in their culture and religion.  So much for the myth of “moderate Muslims.”  They appear moderate when the situation requires.  But their heart is invested in the Islamic culture, history, and orthodox doctrine.

It is folly for us to attempt to instruct Muslims in nations that are 99% Muslim such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and a dozen others in the Middle East and around the world to ignore and cast off the mandates of their own religion.  What mandates, you ask?  Mandates to do exactly what the so-called “radical Muslims” are doing:  Fight against any behaviors that deviate from orthodox Islam.  Any watering down of Islam such as the formation of a secular-tolerant government is un-Islamic and should not be tolerated according to orthodox Islamic doctrine.  This intolerance is imposed against both the less orthodox Muslim as well as non-Muslim.  Who are we to tell Muslims what their faith teaches or should teach?  That is our foolishness. 

Finally, our foolish quest for democracy in Islamic nations is a form of US self-deception and wishful thinking.  Democracy is a tool of the majority to control the minority.  So in practice in certain situations it can be a fascist form of government.  What makes a policy hell bent on encouraging democracy even worse is promoting it in a nation that will only use it to empower a governing system of the majority whose religious ideology, Islam, requires the elimination or subjugation of the minority that does not believe in the same orthodox Islam that the governing powers do.  That is exactly what will happen in Islamic nations where we ignorantly promote a democracy.

Our own blood and treasure should have no part in being spent on this fools errand.  Such policies will only waste our resources and will fail.

Our first step to survival will be to acknowledge the danger and evil of Islam – all of it.  Our foreign and domestic policies will not succeed until we recognize this fact.  Once we come to this conclusion, we will begin a long overdue turn-around in achieving respect in the world from where respect is due:  From both our allies and our enemies.  Yes, we will always have enemies.  That is a fact of life.  Even if we give up everything and anything we believe in and are seen as inert, powerless and irrelevant, we will still have enemies because we will not believe as they do.

Our foreign policy is unrealistic and doomed to fail because we believe the other half of the world can be “just like us.”   They are not.  Face it.  Admit it.  And defend ourselves against them instead of wasting our resources on trying to change them.

Friday, June 13, 2014

Obama demands compromise with the devil…

Obama is once again demonstrating his true colors, this time applied to Iraq.  He chastises Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for not compromising with the most vicious sect of Islam, the Sunni al Qaeda who are imposing middle ages sharia on their conquered territories.  This is a position of most leftists with another illustration of this given via a current Slate article HERE.

So, Obama insists that another nation compromise with the devil in the same manner he wishes the rest of us here, especially  conservatives, sacrifice our values at the alter of big brother government and fascist Islam.  These two – big government and fascist Islam - happen to be allies of convenience at the moment.

Here is Barack’s money quote:

"This should be a wake-up call; Iraq’s leaders have to demonstrate a willingness to make hard decisions and compromises on behalf of the Iraqi people in order to bring the country together," he said.

What does “compromise” mean in this context?  It means giving into the most orthodox and radical doctrines and culture of 6th century Islam – including the cutting off of fingers, arms, legs and heads as the preferred form of justice.  It means tolerating nothing but strict Islamic doctrine and severely punishing those who think or act otherwise.  This is the “compromise” demanded by Obama.

Obama believes that the “Iraqi people” want this – this “compromise.”  Well, perhaps they do.  And if they do, they will get what they wish for.  And therefore, what happens next is none of our business.

Obama’s demand for compromise by the Iraqi government is  instructive for us in the US.  He wants everyone else to compromise while he imposes his socialist, and ultimately, Islamic-inspired civilization.  He wants “tolerance” and “compromise” to be a one-way street.  A one-way tolerance.  Every one else is wrong except him.  No one else’s value system is worth even discussing.  Just compromise.

We ought to have our collective heads examined if we send anyone except the Obama Administration, including Mr. Hussein himself in person, to straighten things out in Iraq at this point.  Which reminds me of my new favorite quote made famous by the most incompetent Secretary of State this nation ever had, that we all should invoke concerning Iraq:

“What difference, at this point, does it really make?”

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Gov. Perry: Homosexuality can be controlled just like alcoholism…

And he has it right:

From the Dallas News:

Perry, a former and potential future GOP presidential candidate, was then asked whether he believed that homosexuality was a disorder.

The newspaper said the governor responded that “whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that.”

“I may have the genetic coding that I’m inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way,” he said.

Our culture currently believes that alcoholism, a genetic predisposition among a segment of our population, is not good for society.  Consequently, our culture encourages treatment to curtail the alcoholic's use of alcohol.

On the other hand, our culture currently believes that homosexuality, also a genetic predisposition among a segment of our population, is NOT harmful to society.  Consequently, our culture DIScourages treatment to curtail active homosexual behavior.  In fact, our culture is so manipulated by the aggressive homosexual special interests and sympathizers in this country, that it is a crime to call homosexuality a destructive behavior that adversely affects our society.

This protection of evil is the equivalent of encouraging the alcoholics of America to continue drinking – being blind to the consequences to society.

Our society has declined (not “progressed” as “progressives” would like us to believe) to the point of not realizing or understanding the harm rampant and overt homosexuality will have on our civilization.  We cannot see beyond the next episode of the many TV shows normalizing homosexual lifestyles.