The Arab Descent Into Darkness

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/05/the-arab-world-has-never-recovered-from-the-loss-of-1967/

I suspect that the intellectual author finds Christianity and Judaism to be just as "atavistic" (ancient / backward) as Islam. When there are three great monothistic religions, two of which DO worship the same God (the Father), and one who does not, intellectuals see the failure of the imposter as reason to indict the other two as well. It was what they see as "equality" -- we know religion is bad, if one out of three monotheistic religions is a disaster and the other two are huge successes, it "proves" that religion is bad! Simple.

It's a good visitation of Arab history post '67 anyway ... an excerpt.

Fifty years after Azm and other Arab intellectuals started to mercilessly deconstruct their ossified political orders, reactionary and primitive religious structures, and stagnant societies, the Arab world has descended further into darkness. Physical, intellectual, and political desolation has claimed many of the once lively metropolises of the Arab region — Damascus, Aleppo, Baghdad, Mosul, Cairo, and Alexandria — with only Beirut still resisting, albeit teetering on the edge. For centuries, these cities constituted a rich human and linguistic mosaic of ancient communities including Muslims, Christians, Jews, Druze, Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians, and Circassians. In modern times, they were joined by Greek, Armenian, and Italian communities. A vibrant cosmopolitanism found home in the port cities of Alexandria and Beirut and the cities of the hinterland, such as Aleppo, Damascus, and Baghdad.

Hijab Irony, Submission

“[I feel unsafe] all the time. I had someone follow me home from practice and try to report me to police. And this is right on 28th and 7th in New York City… 

I want people to know that as hard as [these racist incidents] are on me, they don’t come even close to things we’ve seen like the shooting in North Carolina or the rhetoric around the Khan family at the DNC. 

It’s ridiculous and we as a country have to change and I feel like this is our moment.”

In a world with no truth, everything is relative. Note the young woman is competing from the USA -- the country that "has to change". Sharia Law Islamic states? No concern about THEIR changing!

Islam means SUBMISSION to Islamic law, or it means DEATH which is also a form of submission.

Why does the the left love Islam? Because they believe in SUBMISSION -- they just think they can use Islamists just like they use Blacks to gain POWER -- the they may well treat them as they do Christians today -- or very possibly kill them and Christians just as they abort babies today.

There are only so many 8lb rocks you can dodge when buried up to your neck -- then you learn submission.

Tribal Violence, Gays and Islam

50 killed in Florida nightclub, shooter pledged ISIS allegiance - CNN.com:

I'm sure we will spend a lot of time on "what gun did he use?" since the killer was a person of color and indicated support for Islam and apparently BO. Muslims, blacks and gays are all part of "The Party" tent, so the only"foul" here is the weapon itself. Two of "their Tribes" had a disagreement.

In  Iran, Saudi Arabia and any country close to Islamic rule, homosexuality is a death penalty crime -- we are told not to talk or think about that. Islam is the "religion of peace", and their culture is to be respected. Christians on the other hand love gays, addicts, and even pedophiles (all have some level of genetic component), but hate their self and societally destructive behaviors. For the position on gays, Christians are often loathed by the left -- pedophiles are still not considered "natural and normal", but there are some movements in that direction on the left -- only being an addict is seen as a condition with a genetic basis to be treated / cured as opposed to embraced by both left and right.

In a nation that has killed 60 million babies in their mothers womb, life is clearly worth less than inconvenience -- even 9 months of inconvenience. If a person is part of a "good religion of peace" (not a BAD religion like Christianity), and that "good religion" teaches that homosexuals ought to to receive the death penalty, is it THAT hard to understand how such a person would see killing a number of them as a way to handle that? Perhaps a gay had inconvenienced them?

No doubt there will be lots of posturing and finger pointing -- "hate", "gun control", etc. No doubt Islam will be completely NOT an issue for the MSM and sitting politicians. Can you even IMAGINE if the shooter had been a Trump rather than a BO supporter?

We are a nation with no respect for life, so no respect for much of anything else. We elected BO, certainly the majority has no sense of what "America" even was. The best we have is a vacuous promise from Trump to "Make America great again!" -- whatever he means by that. Hildebeast is pledged to keep destroying it, and given that the country is largely controlled by TPs bureaucracy, I'm pretty sure that she can drive us deeper into oblivion than even BO.

Can Trump do anything positive? I have no idea -- but a nation that can't figure out what bathroom to use isn't likely to have any clues on preventing mass killings by Islamic terrorists!

'via Blog this'

They Fear Critical Thinking, Ayaan Hirsi Ali i

Why Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals | Observer:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is hated by both Muslims and the Western left wing. I think the following paragraph sums it up completely why that is for BOTH parties.

“They want everyone to get out of their way,” she says. “They fear critical thinking. Anyone in the Islamic world with intelligence who takes a minute to think will not like what they see.”

They want all opposition out of their way and they fear critical thinking. Islam, the Western left,"The Party", students on American college campuses or the liberal relative or associate you deal with. They brook no opposition -- they fear it and they DON'T WANT IT TO EXIST!

But as Ms. Hirsi Ali works to combat those challenges, she finds herself battling the stubborn, unrelenting forces that would have her censored. The efforts to tar her with the tried-and-true epithet of “Islamophobic” come both from powerful Muslim enterprises that would like to squash her like a bug and some on the left, for whom a narrative of the Muslim world as victims and the West as victimizers is precious and comfortable. They regard Ms. Hirsi Ali as trouble. She is, after all, a Muslim-born woman who personally experienced the very abuse that she criticizes. The 46-year-old is also a superb writer, a winning speaker, inarguably courageous and telegenic to boot. She is an atheist as well. For those who wish to suppress criticism of the plight of women under Islam, she is, in short, a disaster.

If the left cared at all about the rights of women, they would never take the side of Islam. If they cared for the rights of gays, they would never take the side of Islam. They "care" for neither, what they care about is the destruction of Western civilization and POWER.

” She countered: “I embrace Muslims but I reject Islamic law … because it’s totalitarian, because it’s bigoted and especially bigoted against women.” The anger she stirs on the left confounds her. “You have to ask yourself why anyone would align with proponents of Islamic law,” she says with wonder. 

Ms. Hirsi Ali has no good answer to this question, and she is not the only one. “How do I get liberals to understand that we are the liberals in this debate?” television host Bill Maher asked her about the subjugation of women in Muslim communities around the world and the indulgence in violence that is taught there. Ms. Hirsi Ali is doing her best. What is terribly unclear is whether the left is prepared to listen.

Why is this answer hard for her and Bill Maher? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck, etc, are you going to believe it if it tells you it's an elephant???? "Liberals" stole the name "liberal", they are no more liberal than a duck is an elephant. Fascists, totalitarians, Statists, zealots, fundamentalists, etc -- THOSE are all worthy names for them, and for most Muslims as well!

For the left, it isn't just science that is "settled", IT'S EVERYTHING! -- and people that don't know that are just poorly informed or too stupid to understand it.


'via Blog this'

Minnesota Vice -- Enemy Combatant, Criminal, or Aspiring War Criminal?

Alleged ISIL recruits from Twin Cities argue for 'combatant immunity' - StarTribune.com:

We have heard since the early 2000's that "Terrorism" as in "War On" were non-sense terms, and that these matters ought be handled has simple criminal proceedings.

Definitions are always a giant problem for the left, and strangely enough the Star Trib seems to have joined with BO in reviving the ancient term "Levant" as in "ISIL", ceding at least linguistically the entire Eastern Mediterranean to Islamic State ... covered here.

W was of course all wrong to indicate that we are at war with those that want to establish a Caliphate intended to expand to control the entire planet. Strangely though, the people that are fighting US are VERY clear what they are and what it is they want to accomplish!

Five Twin Cities men accused of plotting to go to fight alongside ISIL in Syria are asking a federal judge to drop murder conspiracy charges on grounds that they have “combatant immunity” under both common and international law. 

They say combatants are immune from criminal prosecutions for acts of war, including murder, against military targets.

Huh? THEY claim that they are "combatants" in a war, and as such have "combatant immunity"! No doubt BO will help us all out and tell us they are NOT "Islamic, combatants, etc" ... when it comes to gender, all are free to declare their own at whatever point they desire, however when it comes to someone declaring what religion they are or what type of violent activity they are engaged in, we must wait for the proper emanation from BO! I thought the prosecutor said it best ...

“They are, if they must be categorized within the international law of armed conflict, best categorized as aspiring war criminals,” the prosecution said.

'via Blog this'

Obama, Defender of the Faith

Obama defends the faith | Power Line:

Good column.

If we judge by actions and words, we know that Islam is the faith that Obama feels it is important to defend both at home and abroad. One often wonders if he isn't the worlds foremost authority on what is and isn't "Islamic".

Today he went to a Mosque from which  at least one known terrorist was convicted, identified as a breeding ground for terror and watched. The Mosque was led for 15 years by a radical cleric that worked with a federally designated al Qaeda front group.

Apparently THAT particular Mosque IS "Islamic", yet it clearly supports terror. One can only assume where BO stands on the issue!



'via Blog this'

Lost Girlfriends and Muslims

Minnesota leaders' full-page ad decries bigotry toward Muslims - StarTribune.com:

I usually try to make my cases in clear points and reason, but this one hits me emotionally and I know the reason.

Sometime in late February early March of '76, forty years ago, I set off on a spring break to Indiana in a snowstorm with two young ladies my age to visit some people we had met in 4-H a couple years prior.  (we are supposed to get 8" of snow today)

Five years ago while driving north to snowmobile in a snowstorm with my son and wife sleeping while I drove, I finally realized that I was the most boring young man in human history! I'm a slow learner -- the mothers that allowed their daughters to go along with me knew what they were doing. I then understood a conversation with a young woman about why it didn't work out long ago. Her succinct reason -- "My parents like you better than they like me". (I'm sure they didn't, it just seemed that way to her). 

I feel the same way about the full-page Muslim ad as I did about that conversation. Why do our lefty neighbors choose Muslims over Christians? Why do our elites find Muslims "stylish" and Christians to be "hicks"? (bitter clingers)

Muslims share many of the elements of what secular society finds reprehensible about Christians. They are creationists, they hold homosexuality as a grievous sin, they believe that men and women have God given roles, they pray at work or school, they hold an ancient text as more holy than modern secular pronouncements.

They of course go far further than Christians. They make women wear hijabs and blame them for rape. They will kill homosexuals or adulterers if they become a majority. Once they do reach majority, they demand that the government be an Islamic State, by force if required.

The simple answer to "why" is CHRIST. He is, was, and always will be the DIFFERENCE. Islam may be far more restrictive and infinitely more violent than Christianity, but Islam rejects Christ, so the unholy totalitarian left is able to make it's peace with Islam but not Christianity.

Emotionally though, it hurts.

Emotions are like weather -- they pass. It is good to acknowledge them from time to time, but meaning of the sort to live by is a deeper truth. I'm convinced our cats have feelings, but other than Cabbage Cat (a feline philosopher that I consult with),  they don't reason much. Many "liberals" are similar ... without the soft fur and purr.

I cover  some reasoning on why "liberals" love Islam but hate Christianity here.  The embrace of "massive tolerance" for Islam feels somewhat the same as if the left leadership of MN put out a full page ad welcoming the Westboro Baptist Church to make their voices heard in MN. I'm not holding my breath on that ... though it would make far more rational sense than the Muslim ad.

If you want to cover a yet deeper philosophical understanding of why western secularism finds Islam preferable, it is covered in this post ... the punchline is that Islam and Leftism agree that "there is no truth".

So we Christians and believers in the exceptionalism of Western civilization have been jilted for Islam. It isn't new -- they love Communism and Fascism as well. (covered that recently here).

Lord have mercy. Christ have mercy.

'via Blog this'

Destroying Male Instinct, The Dance of Death

The Hypnotic Dance of Death | Frontpage Mag:

One of the better descriptions of the power of "political correctness" to destroy even the basic instincts to protect women and children. Just go read the whole thing if you have ANY time, but this is the punchline. What happened to the men? In general, they no longer exist -- they have been brainwashed by political correctness and not even the cry of a helpless girl can wake their natural instincts. Essentially, this article answers my question from here on "how can the left not care?".

What has happened to the world when men, women, politicians, and the elite betray their daughters and children in order to please newcomers with their baser instincts and a cult of male power? 

The answer is sad: the culture of postmodernism has managed to do what couldn’t be achieved even by the Communist propaganda machine. It has degraded the instinct of self-preservation, a natural reaction embedded in humans on a genetic level, the ability to feel compassion and protect a victim – a woman, a girl, a child. An abstract ideology has suppressed the mind and senses. I left the USSR as a hater of Soviet totalitarianism. Now I realize that the cultural totalitarianism of political correctness has turned out to be much more poisonous. 

The Soviet regime dictated harsh rules and established censorship. However, people remained normal human beings. They laughed at authorities, composed jokes about Brezhnev, made satirical films in spite of the censorship, and learned to read newspapers between the lines. Cultural totalitarianism succeeded much more. It affirmed a relentless self-censorship, turned people into sterile zombies, and exterminated basic senses of responsibility and dignity. It changed the very nature of man, and indeed, it was a unique experiment on their own people.  

There is a small carnivorous animal in Siberia – a stoat. It hunts rabbits and hares, which are significantly heavier, faster and stronger than the stoat itself. It doesn’t creep, doesn’t sit in ambush and doesn’t catch its prey on the run. It performs a hypnotic dance of death in front of it — with wriggles, acrobatic leaps and somersaults. The stoat dazzles the prey and, gradually approaching it, then grabs its throat. The rabbit dies from shock. Why does the prey allow the stoat to dazzle and kill it without resisting? Biologists are unable to solve the riddle of the stoat’s hypnotic dance. Western elites have foredoomed their own people by means of somersaults and acrobatic tricks, and doomed them to the same fate of the unfortunate rabbit.  

The hypnotic dance of death is gaining momentum.

'via Blog this'

Understanding Islam, Rape as Reward

Cologne’s Rape Jihad: Muslim Migrants Crash Europe’s Fantasy Islam:

I've lost my ability to continue to try to understand how the leftist mind of "The Party" (TP-D) operates. On one hand, young women should be so protected that "ogling" is a crime no matter what they are wearing, "unwanted kissing" can be classified as "rape", and there is no such thing as "consensual sex" unless they sign the appropriate consent form -- all be it still difficult to discern if they have had anything to drink.

OTOH, when it comes to large groups of Islamic men forming circles and brutally raping women in the center as the police are blocked off -- well, then, women REALLY need to pay a LOT attention to what they wear (have they considered a hijab?),

Truth being the first casualty of war, it was left to Henriette Reker, the fantasy Islam–drenched mayor of Cologne, to blame the victims for their ordeal. Such assaults could be prevented, she declaimed, if German women adopted a “code of conduct” tailored to the Islamic culture, they could prevent future attacks. 

To even mention that such actions are occurring and rapidly expanding is suppressed by the western media.  We can't appear "unwelcoming" or be "profiling" after all ... but for those of you willing to risk your public standing by reading "subversive news":

The Muslim men used a tactic that has escaped the notice of fantasy Islam devotees but is well known to those of us who’ve followed the scant reports on the rape jihad as it has proceeded from Tahrir Square to Malmö to Rotherham: A group of men encircles the targeted woman or girl, trapping her while walling off police and other would-be rescuers. Knowing they are a protected class, the Muslim men have no fear of the cops — “You can’t do anything to me,” and “Mrs. Merkel invited me here,” are just some of the reported taunts. By the time “help” reaches one victim, the assailants have moved on to the next.

How DOES the mind of a person of the left operate? If they picture their own wife or daughter in the center of such a circle of taunting Muslim men, does it cause any protective emotion to rise, or are their brains so totally aligned with the "Word of TP" that such emotions are sublimated to "we feel only what we are told to feel"?  We live in a world where the "red and blue tribes" are so fully separated that the age old admonition to attempt to "see it from the other side" has become impossible for me.

There must be some place the mind goes where the baby in the womb, the thousands of young black men shooting each other each year, the lives of the police, and apparently now the young western woman being repeatedly raped by a circle of taunting entitled Muslim men, simply cease to matter. Once that happens, one can apparently feel morally superior and "good" as they look in the mirror in that they know they are aligned with TP and TP is always right!?  I assume they somehow see "the greater good of TP,  praise be to TP!!" but it is here that my ability to "put myself in their frame" is totally inadequate.

This is not isolated. No, it is completely KNOWN, written down, and STATED from many quarters that sexually taking women and children by force is a part of the Islamic plan of conquest:

As I’ve previously explained, when Muslims are seeking conquest, Islamic scripture endorses sexual assault as a weapon to establish their dominance. “O Prophet,” Allah is said to have announced (in the Koran’s sura 33:50), “We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou has paid their dowers, and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the captives of war whom Allah has assigned to thee.”

Once consistency is no longer an issue, it becomes a requirement that INconsistency be pushed to points previously unimaginable. In one context, "kissing is rape", in another, brutal multiple actual penetrative rapes are to be ignored and blamed on the victim.  To hold BOTH these views in the mind concurrently and claim that you are "in support" of both is what it now means to walk around as a supposedly sane supporter of TP!

Can anyone NOT now understand how Germans could gas Jews by day and go home to wife and family in the evening and feel like a "good man"? We now see that millions of people walking among us hold the opinion on rape outlined above at least implicitly. It is the official position of OUR government and that of the governments in Europe!

Without rational and CONSISTENT thought, there are NO LIMITS on what humans can do and believe they are "in the right"! What part of NO LIMITS is it that we fail to grasp?

'via Blog this'

Allah Praised, Christ Removed

Virginia district cancels school over Islamic lesson anger - The Washington Post:

Imagine people being offended by their kids copying "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his  messenger"? How backward. How non-inclusive. How "un-american" -- or at least in opposition to what WaPo and TP have decided is supposed to be the "creed", "high mindedness" or "sophisticated educated thinking" of today.

Had somebody put up a Christmas Tree, had a Christmas Program, or (horror!) said "Merry Christmas" to their class, the ACLU would be involved, teachers and administrators would be being fired, sued, etc, and the national media would be screaming about Separation of Church and STATE with extreme umbrage and in total support of even a single complainer who was forced to (gasp) view a Christmas Tree!

As it is, WaPo is disappointed that people took offence in something as non-offensive (to them) as repeating what millions of Christians over the centuries  have died rather than repeat, and even today at least thousands are being beheaded, burned, stoned, etc for failing to comply with.

We have been treated to supposedly "righteous" outrage over manger scenes, The Ten Commandments, silent prayer and yes, even  "Merry Christmas" on a frequent basis, and especially in this season, for decades now.

Not ALL the sheeple appear to be completely ready for the next phase beyond the removal all connection to Christ in anything public, and replacement with "whatever", including Allah or Santa.  So WaPo is disappointed they have more "education" to do!

Every human has a religion. What is yours? Do you worship the State? Science? Money? Mother Earth? Your own ego? (I think they are trying to decide if that is called "BOism" or "Trumpist")

Here yet again, we see that it all comes down to Christ -- the ultimate divider and uniter. He divides the ages into BC and AD, and he unites mankind into Blood Brothers in Christ, or divides to all the various "doers" working to gain some sort of afterlife or to distract themselves to the belief that this is all there is. Not even the WaPo is offended by Allah or Mohammed ... they know they are dead and imaginary and so the idea of someone copying a statement of faith in them gives no offence.

But "Merry Christmas"? Or very recently even "Thoughts and Prayers" uttered by Christians is enough to bring out the torches and pitchforks and go on a hunt. Much fear in their reaction I sense! (it is Star Wars day ;-) )

TP hates Christ, so they hate Christmas.  It seems that the chief TP sacrament of abortion is their ritual of "remembrance in death" of the one infant that made it to the manger and to the cross that they would have MOST liked to abort. With each of the millions of deaths of the most innocent, their hearts quiver with renewed hatred for the spirit of that one babe they most wanted extinguished and they still fear above all else.

There is another way ... it is the best of seasons to allow that spirit to enfold you. It isn't just "captive Israel" that longs for his return in glory!

'via Blog this'

Sticks, Stones, and The State, Vikings Edition

My run-in with hate speech at a Minnesota Vikings game - StarTribune.com:

While I'm going to treat the tale in the linked article as completely true, I would much prefer that before the Red Star prints such a thing they would have at least found the security guard mentioned for corroboration.  As you will see, the "story" is just a BIT too pat for someone that has any shred of independent thought.  That said, let's take it as gospel.

The charge is that "some angry guy" demanded to know if the "attorney and director of the Advocates for Human Rights Refugee and Immigrant Program" was a refugee,  at a Vikings game. Nothing physical, just a question, but this attorney and director "felt threatened", got security involved, got an apology that he felt was not sincere enough, demanded the interlocutor be ejected and the Vikings failed to comply.

Asking if the attorney was a "refugee" is supposed to be clear and reprehensible "hate speech". Not "rude", not "bad manners" ...

I was raised with "Sticks and stones will break your bones but words will never hurt you", and "If you can't stand up for yourself, nobody else is going to". We don't live in that civilization today, but what IS the "civilization" we have wrought?

I remember the time in my adult life when I came the closest to being intimidated. An old candidate for Congress from our district, Mary Reider had 20-30 union folks marching in a circle in front of the entrance to the Kahler chanting and blocking people like me heading in to see Newt Gingrich speak. The more intelligent people were going around to another exit. Something in my nature compelled me to stride into the group -- which, probably since I'm slightly above average size (though clearly not intelligence) completely stopped and let me pass with a just few shouted nasty words.

Did they have a right to block the entrance? Were the words that they hurled at me "hate speech"?  -- we know the answer. "Hate speech" and "proper intimidation" are declared by "The Party" (D).

I'm reminded of Churchill, "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without effect". Walking through demonstrators is tame by comparison, but I'm sure the feeling is related.

So how does tattling to the teacher or the security guard make one feel? I suppose it depends on the results that your tattling provides, but I can't imagine it makes one EVER feel "secure or good", because AT BEST you are in hopes that the watchful eye of the State in some form or another is ALWAYS going to be there to protect you.

It is a huge difference in worldview. Like the liberal woman's rape defense -- pee or soil yourself in hopes that the attacker will be turned off and leave you alone, vs the conservative woman's defense -- pull out your .45 and let the attacker pee or soil himself while he hopes you let him live.

But the "liberal" mind never stops at just making THEIR choice, they want to make YOUR choice as well! Gun control is just one example.

But what scared me the most was the silence surrounding me. As I looked around, I didn’t know who was an ally or an enemy. In those hushed whispers, I felt like I was alone, unsafe and surrounded. It was the type of silence that emboldens a man to play inquisitor.

I hate to tell him, but the real world is ALWAYS that way, at least until you make your play.

So we live in a society where males are feminized and individual responsibility is transferred to the State, while anyone that "gets involved" is very likely to be sued by lawyers just like the one complaining. He wants people to stand up and get involved, yet he apparently feels no personal backbone to simply say "none of your damned business"! <insert favorite emphasis here ... a*hole, d*head, would all be "appropriate">

The problem with the "liberal" world view is that the only way it can come close to being any sort of reality is "1984" -- EVERY action of EVERYONE is completely scripted and "Big Brother" ALWAYS has the video of EVERY incident so that those that fail to comply COMPLETELY with liberal dogma will be punished, and those who do comply will be rewarded. The State tells you exactly what to do, and you WILL do it!

The column shows where "Hate Speech" starts to become thought control. One person decided to ask a question that the column author decided went beyond "rude or inappropriate", but he felt ZERO responsibility to personally stand up for his rights. HOWEVER, he believes that people otherwise conditioned by thousands of cues in their daily environment to "let the proper authorities handle it" ought to somehow "step in" when the "confrontation" had never even risen to the level of "words were exchanged".

The attorney failed to cross-examine -- but it is "society's fault".

The very people intent on producing a society of absolute sheep are now incensed when the sheep behave as sheep -- and they apparently actually believe (or at least claim to) that is possible to achieve their "utopia" without levels of State control and surveillance that so far have only been imagined in fictional books.

A people who can't stand on their own feet will eventually kneel before people that can.

America, Land of the Politically Correct and home of the kneelers.

'via Blog this'

The Regensburg Lecture, Benedict / Schall, Book

http://www.amazon.com/The-Regensburg-Lecture-James-Schall/dp/1587316951

I first read this book in February of 2013 and read it again in the face of attempts by Muslims, media, Obama and others to claim that "Islamic terrorism is not Islamic" after Paris.

Such claims of course fly directly in the face of history, the Koran, Islamic tradition, and numerous events and discussions, including the response to Pope Benedict's Regensburg lecture covered in this book, which I consider to be extremely important for the trinity of faith, reason, and truth in our time -- both relative to Islam and secular attacks on that holy trinity of meaning.

The proximate reason that the political left and Islam reacted to the speech was Benedict's use of a QUOTE from a 14th century dialogue between Byzantine Christian emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a Persian scholar relative to violence in Islam which reads:

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,”

That was a QUOTE, used to point out that violence being associated with Islam is very old -- as old as Islam actually, and that there are many verses in Islamic texts, especially LATER ones that indicate that use of violence against "infidels" is actually commanded by Islam in a number of cases. The "religion of peace" only becomes operative when the entire world is unified in an Islamic Caliphate under Sharia Law in the most recent Islamic texts .... some of the oldest ones are less violent, because at that time Mohammad was powerless to act militarily.

As is often the case -- as in the Charlie Hebdo killings, the Danish Cartoon killings, etc, ... after the Pope's lecture, churches in the West Bank were attacked, an Italian nun was killed in Somalia and a priest was beheaded in Iraq. "Moderate Muslims" claimed to be terribly offended (with the Pope, not the violence), and many on the left were offended as well -- as Kerry intimated after Paris, even he -- and Obama who declared that "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet", find such attacks and certainly "outrage" to be as Kerry put it "legitimate".

The alignment of the left and Islam is not accidental from the point of view of the book.

Moreover it is a difficult thing to understand, state, and accept the truth, however much these efforts constitute the real purpose of our minds. We can see both in our revelational and in our philosophic traditions that truth is not always or even often accepted and kept. But truth is never rejected without proposing a counter-theory or proof that would justify this rejection. That is, we can ironically not be "unreasonable" without, at the same time, being reasonable, without giving reasons for our deviation from reason. Such counter theories in the form of ideologies or myths, become themselves aspects of understanding the whole truth about something. To understand truth, it is necessary to understand the plausible errors surrounding it and arguments against it. 

As Benedict pointed out in the lecture, Islam teaches that God is not bound by rationality ... unlike the Christian God, the God of Islam is NOT a "God of order". So Islam, like much modern thought rejects reason in favor of "other means" -- whatever those may be!

“God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.”

This is much the same as modern leftist liberal thought -- "post modern", "deconstructivist" which find the idea of "truth" to be no longer operative -- the truth is VERY relative, and in fact can be pretty much whatever the left decides it to be. Clearly, without truth, there is no reason -- and there is no consistency, and THAT is exactly the kind of universe that the Islamic god rules over -- and strangely, where the modern US left lives in as well!

The lecture points out, what Socrates said to Phaedo on the loss of truth --  "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being -- but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and suffer great loss".

The lecture itself is not very long, but it is very deep. The essence of the Catholic Faith the synthesis of the Greek Mind with Christian Revelation, through Augustine and Aquinas.  The assertion is that has been happening since the Enlightenment and Reformation is the "de-Hellenization" of faith -- which Benedict argues is destroying the university and civilization with it. This de-Hellenization  is in danger of converting Protestant Christianity to being "irrational", as the secular and Islamic worlds are forced to be since they lack the "logos" (Christ ... logic, reason).

We are vulnerable to the illogic of Islam because we have lost our spiritual Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), and our intellectual trinity "Faith (revelation/insight), Reason and Truth".

It is a VERY worthy read -- and re-read a few times. The whole book is only 160 pages, and the lecture itself is only SIXTEEN! They are however "a bit high octane" -- maybe like trading in your glass of beer for a glass of 190 proof Everclear!

ISIS Will Sell Your Children Into Slavery

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

I had a good long time to mull the state of the crazy world yesterday on the way back from Denver as the Packers were losing to Detroit at Lambeau for the first time since 1991, the surrealism mounts.

It seems very clear that Paris wasn't caused by some film or Global Warming.

Obama has called Global Warming the greatest threat to our future 22 times now ... apparently Bernie Sanders did the same in the Democrat debate over the weekend. Last Friday AM on ABC, BO said that "ISIL is not getting stronger, we have them CONTAINED". Often one has to a wait at least a couple days for the idiocy of BO's statements to be completely clear ... not in this case.

I read the linked article prior to Friday, it is from the Atlantic, a "near left" publication, on par with the NYTs in left tilt, and was published in March of this year. Nothing surprising to me about Paris other than the fact that such attacks have been as infrequent as they have been -- anyone paying any attention has known what we were up against since at least the first World Trade Center bombing in '93. The choice is a very simple one "us or them" -- if we want to keep following the way of BO, they intend to have our women as concubines and our children as slaves ... but Global Warming is a bigger threat. Thus sayeth BO!

Everyone decries the violence in Paris, but am I the only one that remembers that if the "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey's" had given even MINIMAL support back in '03, we wouldn't have this problem? Anybody paying attention knew who we were fighting in Iraq back in '03 -- the linked article covers it thusly:

In November (2014), the Islamic State released an infomercial-like video tracing its origins to bin Laden. It acknowledged Abu Musa’b al Zarqawi, the brutal head of al‑Qaeda in Iraq from roughly 2003 until his killing in 2006, as a more immediate progenitor, followed sequentially by two other guerrilla leaders before Baghdadi, the caliph.

The left in this country sold the masses on the idea that "al-Qaeda was not in Iraq" -- and continues to uphold that claim if it breaks into the popular consciousness, as it did with "American Sniper", but buried in an article like that linked, they do let the truth slip from time to time. It is interesting to see what W said back in '05 on the subject of what we were and are fighting: 

 In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. 

No acts of ours involves the rage of killers. And no concessions, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans of murder. On the contrary; they target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory. (Applause.) 

But, those in the thrall of "The Party" and it's media KNOW that Bush was all wrong and stupid, while BO is an infallible genius. We DID back down -- BO ceded Iraq to "The JV Team", destabilized Libya and weakly intoned of "Red Lines" in Syria. Without BO, ISIS would never have gotten territory and as the linked article points out, the doctrine of ISIS is the doctrine of returning the Islamic Caliphate and it **REQUIRES** territory --

To be the caliph, one must meet conditions outlined in Sunni law—being a Muslim adult man of Quraysh descent; exhibiting moral probity and physical and mental integrity; and having ’amr, or authority. This last criterion, Cerantonio said, is the hardest to fulfill, and requires that the caliph have territory in which he can enforce Islamic law.

The article does a good job in general of pointing out the obvious VERY "Islamic" roots of ISIL and the fact that their doctrines are very much in keeping with fundamental Islam -- and their goal is clear, they mean to defeat us and enslave us.

...  the caliphate has continued to embrace slavery and crucifixion without apology. “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women,” Adnani, the spokesman, promised in one of his periodic valentines to the West. “If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.”

The article gets a little long, but the important things for people that don't want to see their children and grandchildren as slaves of an Islamic Caliphate is that:

1. Their goal is VICTORY, and unlike us, they believe in it enough to die for it. Do we care enough to die to prevent their victory and our grandchildren as slaves? Guess not. 
2. They are VERY MUCH Islamic, and THEY DON'T NEGOTIATE -- they don't send "ambassadors" nor even recognize other governments. Their motto is "win or die" -- even voting is a sin worthy of the death penalty. 
3. While they are certainly still a minority of Muslims, there are A LOT of Muslims that find their doctrine appealing -- the author tries to assert a non-violent fundamentalist version of Islam as an alternative, but one wonders if he was ever a young man -- the ACTION of ISIS is way too appealing for his alternative to win out. 

I especially liked these two as telling on the fact that what ISIS is doing and the general reaction of scholars in trying to downplay it as similarly meaningless as what most of the doctrinal disputes of modern Christianity have degenerated into. 

But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.” Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition".

“Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish [jihadists] are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition,” Haykel said. Islamic State fighters “are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day.”

I found his closing paragraphs familiar to a lot of my thinking, and chilling. Contrast the meaning of being "personally involved in struggles beyond their own lives" with "voting to redistribute other people's money, or voting to force others to bake cakes for gay "weddings", or "voting for hope and change". "Especially when it is a burden" -- the essence of "having skin in the game", rather than voting to force others to do what you want.

I could enjoy their company, as a guilty intellectual exercise, up to a point. In reviewing Mein Kampf in March 1940, George Orwell confessed that he had “never been able to dislike Hitler”; something about the man projected an underdog quality, even when his goals were cowardly or loathsome. “If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon.” The Islamic State’s partisans have much the same allure. They believe that they are personally involved in struggles beyond their own lives, and that merely to be swept up in the drama, on the side of righteousness, is a privilege and a pleasure—especially when it is also a burden.

The author didn't think that ISIS was likely to execute terrorist attacks in western lands -- Paris seems to show that he was wrong on that.

All of a sudden, BO seems much happier "leading from behind" as France steps up attacks in Syria. Like a dog chasing a car, it is much more than a bit unclear what the objectives of France, the US, or Russia really are in Syria. France probably wants to kill ISIS and is largely OK with Assad ... which would seem to align with Russia. The US has declared that we want Assad gone, but how we prevent ISIS from filling that void is a mystery. It is obvious at this point how huge a mistake BO made in pulling the troops out of Iraq -- so even if Syria "miraculously" stabilizes under Assad or someone else, ISIS has a home in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

Once we were "One Nation under God, with Liberty and Justice for all". We saw ourselves as standing for important ideals -- a Flag, a Republic, a Constitution, we were exceptional, and hundreds of thousands died in preserving those ideas, because we knew they were not free -- from the Revolutionary War, to the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. We answered the call again after 9-11, but the corruption in the soul of America that first reared it's ugly head in Vietnam came back with a vengeance.

We are no longer a nation under God. We no longer respect a Constitution, nor even generally realize the difference between a Republic and a "democracy". To the extent we have any ideals at all, they are those of Mizzou -- declared by some majority or court decree, and not to be questioned under threat of state or institutional sanction. The young of university age expect their views to protected from even discussion -- they have no interest in defending them verbally, let alone on a battlefield.

Those that have nothing to live and die for eventually find that someone else will tell them if they live, and exactly how they will live, because their masters don't share their lack of commitment.

The human condition is slavery -- to the Devil, the State, addiction, money,  etc.  I'm a slave too -- to Christ, praise be to God!

Why Do Liberals Love Islam?

http://jonathanlast.com/why-do-liberals-love-islam/

I've got my "simple theory" for at least the leftist overlords -- totalitarians like other totalitarians. Our left LOVED the USSR, they still like Cuba, China has gotten a little too commercial for them but still better loved than say England or certainly Israel.

The linked article tries out a couple other theories ... "relativism" is an all-purpose for both sides of the relationship. While the left holds to "absolute, lock them up if they disagree" relative to white christians supporting gay "marriage", relativism allows them to decide that such rules can be suspended for Muslims -- sure, they might have to avert their eyes a bit when gays are actually thrown from high places or stoned in Muslim countries, but hey -- it allows one to REALLY earn their multicultural diversity chops!

Remember, far left is ABSOLUTE rule of the State, and the State is human, not divine, so "cognitive dissonance" is required. The key skill is to be able to parrot what the party line says in the face of even massive shedding of blood. Six thousand young black men killed in the streets yearly by other young black men need to be completely ignored while marching for "Black Lives Matter" over a couple trumped up justified police shootings of blacks.

From the Muslim side, there are only two political parties -- the D's may support gays, women's rights, sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll, but they support it for INFIDELS! One doesn't have to be a very smart Muslim to realize that if enough Muslims can be brought in, enough kids can be had, enough dead or imaginary votes created, it would be EASY to be Muslim nation -- probably already close to having a "Muslim seat" on the SCOTUS, make common cause with the black seat and who knows?

Besides, they sure are not going to vote with heavily Christian, Jewish-loving, strong US loving and flag waving Republicans! Sure it takes a LITTLE cognitive dissonance for them to vote D, but get real!

The other theory offered is the old liberal "we are really nice to our pets" theory.

I think the issue is more that they see Muslims as a new potential mascot group that they can champion and therefore obtain that cheap sense of moral superiority that comes with riding in like a white knight. I think a lot of liberal attitudes towards minorities aren’t actually based on the good of the minorities, but how good it makes the liberals feel to champion them.

It seems completely insane to see folks that would lock someone up for not baking a cake for a gay "wedding" falling all over themselves to defend a group whose religions teachings generally make the Westboro Baptist Church look like really easy going liberals by comparison. After all, Westboro has yet to stone, throw from a cliff, behead, drown or even rape anyone! Let alone threaten to implement laws to make such the standard for behavior!

But then, these are completely insane times. 

The real situation here is exactly the same as the discussion of wealth and poverty. Poverty needs no explanation, it is the natural state! It is wealth that has to be created by systems and actions that are successful. The state of nature is poverty.

Evil is the the natural state of a fallen world, it needs no explanation. Is it REALLY hard at all for any remotely intelligent person that still has some contact with what was once the standards of Western Civilization to look at Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, etc, and not see evil? The rape and child molestation of women and young boys, the abject poverty, the repression, the violent attacks on Christians, destruction of cultural/religious icons, stoning gays, etc?

The claim of "liberals" is that the fallen world is not fallen -- but rather that it is GOOD! Their alignment with Islam is actually consistent because ultimately, the destruction of Western Civilization will bring us to a state of nominalist control by POWER. Might is right is morally arbitrary! -- any claim to what many see as "natural" (Biblical) morality is removed. "Morality" becomes whatever POWER says it is -- Islamic "morality" is no better or worse than any arbitrary morality since POWER literally IS "morality" when evil reigns.

"Liberals" love Islam because it is rule by POWER. The natural state of man is always "like likes like".

'via Blog this'

Islamists Keep Rolling

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/the-latest-from-the-religion-of-peace.php

The advance of Islam in the world, accompanied by  violence against Christians steadily increases, but with less and less MSM reporting. We have been told what to think. Islam is "the religion of peace". If there is any violence it is easy to explain because of "the crusades" -- or maybe "George Bush".

In any case, there is no story here --- ignore the rapes, the beheadings, the bombings.

Remember when not having a good enough plan to deal with what happened after you deposed a leader was a major news story? I think the line was "if you break it, it's yours"!  .... Libya, Gadaffi? .... Never Mind!

Clipmark of Islam for Peace

As I surf the web, sometimes for just a couple minutes, I run into things that I want to save and maybe blog on later. I installed something called "Clipmarks" into FireFox that allows me to create and save "snippets" or "clips" of the web and to comment and share with others. I've been experimenting with a number of these "Web 2.0 Technogies" over the break and after.

Here is a Clipmark on the subject of "why we fight". It is CNN/MSM, so lefties can trust it. Lots of peaceful sentiments, looks like we we are overreacting in the War On Terror.

At a recent debate over the battle for Islamic ideals in England, a British-born Muslim stood before the crowd and said Prophet Mohammed's message to nonbelievers is: "I come to slaughter all of you."

"We are the Muslims," said Omar Brooks, an extremist also known as Abu Izzadeen. "We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad."

"All of the world belongs to Allah, and we will live according to the Sharia wherever we are," said Choudary, a lawyer. "This is a fundamental belief of the Muslims." (Watch a call for Islamic law Video)

Asked if he believes in democracy, he said, "No, I don't at all."

"One day, the Sharia will be implemented in Britain. It's a matter of time."

Clipmarks clip on religion of peace

"Peace" is always easy, just like with the USSR. We could have saved a lot of defense dollars if we just signed up to be members of the Communist Party and did it the Gulag way. Same deal today, oddly the left seems to be OK with Burkas and stoning Gays as long as a group that is anti-American does it.