Black Church Leaders Defend Baker in Wedding Cake Case

A Colorado baker has a right not to make a wedding cake celebrating a same-sex marriage that is against his faith, and the LGBT agenda is not a new civil rights movement, black Christian leaders said Monday outside the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nine leaders spoke in support of Jack Phillips, whose lawyers will ask the high court Dec. 5 to affirm that his free speech and religious liberty rights under the First Amendment allow him to turn down a request by two male customers to create such a cake.

“The First Amendment gives us the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion,” Garland Hunt, senior pastor at The Father’s House, a nondenominational church in Atlanta, said at the press conference in defense of Phillips, who was not there. “The freedom of religion is an inalienable right that comes from God.”

In 2012, Phillips declined the business of two men who visited his bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and asked him to create a cake celebrating their wedding in Massachusetts.

His Christian faith, Phillips has said, teaches that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. He also has said he doesn’t design and make cakes that go against his faith in other ways, such as being sexually suggestive or depictingSatan.

Persecution of Christians is real and “coming for America,” Hunt said.

View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

Amazing civil rights leaders at #SCOTUS standing with Jack Phillips of #MasterpieceCakeshop #JusticeForJack. Photo: Brianna Herlihy @briher10 on Twitter.

Dean Nelson, co-founder of the Frederick Douglass Foundation of North Carolina and senior fellow for African-American affairs at the Washington-based Family Research Council, said Phillips is being attacked because he is a Christian.

“Jack is an honorable man who has served his community through his business for all people, regardless of their race, creed, color, gender, or sexual identity,” Nelson said. “Jack as a Christian is compelled to love all people, and this is what he has done for decades.”

The press conference was organized by Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group that defends religious liberty and represents Phillips, and sponsored by the Frederick Douglass Foundation, which promotes Christian and Republican values. The foundation also has launched a website in support of Phillips called We Got Your Back, Jack.

Janet Boynes, author of “Called Out: A Former Lesbian’s Discovery of Freedom,” said the civil rights movement started to help blacks gain their rights and sexual behavior is not the same as skin color.

“I resent having my race compared to what other people do in bed,” Boynes said.

LGBT activists want special rights, she said, and she is concerned that people are falling for the idea that homosexuality is not a choice. American culture is in a “downward spiral,” she said.

“God only condones and blesses sex between a man and a woman in marriage,” she said.

William Avon Keen, president of the Virginia chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization co-founded by civil rights hero Martin Luther King Jr., said activists for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans have hijacked civil rights.

Unlike many LGBT activists, Keen said, he dealt with separate and unequal public facilities when he was growing up.

Keen said the Bible calls homosexuality a sin.

“We as Christians, we feel that murder is a sin. … We feel that marriage is ordained by God between a man and a woman,” Keen said. “We don’t believe in the third gender.”

He said the civil rights movement of the 1960s was “anti-sin,” and that today Christians are “too quiet” on societal issues and need to speak up.

“It is an injustice for our nation or anyone to try to force an individual to deny their faith,” Keen said.

Apathy is the Greatest Insult to the Memory of Fallen Soldiers

KYIV, Ukraine—I’ve experienced our country’s wars both as a combatant and a witness.

I deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq while I was an Air Force special operations pilot, and I’ve been back to report on both of those wars as a journalist.

I’ve also reported on U.S. military operations at other places in the Middle East and across Eastern Europe. And this summer I visited the USS George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier off the coast of Syria, from which warplanes launched around the clock to wage the air war against the Islamic State terrorist group, also known as ISIS.

Throughout my time on the front lines, both as a combatant and a journalist, I’ve heard a common, troubling refrain among America’s military personnel.

Their general impression is that most people back home have either forgotten about or become apathetic to the fact that we still have soldiers deployed in combat zones around the world. This perception of indifference has entrenched an already growing divide between military and civilian societies in America.

The author, second from left, is hoisted aboard a U.S. Air Force helicopter in Iraq in 2015. (Photos: Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal)

White House chief of staff John Kelly, a retired Marine general, evoked that sentiment during a solemn press conference last Thursday.

“We don’t look down upon those of you who haven’t served,” said Kelly, whose son, 2nd Lt. Robert Kelly, died in combat in 2010 in Afghanistan. “In fact, in a way, we’re a little bit sorry because you’ll never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kind of things our servicemen and women do. Not for any other reason than they love this country.”

Kelly’s right—even for those journalists who have been in combat. Because combat feels a lot different when you’re not just worried about your own life, or getting a good story. It’s a lot different when your actions decide the fate of your comrades in arms, as well as whether innocent civilians caught in harm’s way will live or die.

The recent combat deaths of four U.S. Army Green Berets in Niger laid bare America’s entrenched civilian-military divide, as well as the contemporary reluctance of some media outlets to dutifully cover American combat operations unless there is a more “newsworthy” hook to the story.

Some journalists have acted like the recent combat deaths in Niger illuminated some sort of shadow war going on.

Then-President Barack Obama sent U.S. troops to Niger in 2013—and it was never a secret. It just didn’t make the headlines. The story disappeared, like many others related to our military’s combat missions, into the unending maelstrom of the modern news cycle.

U.S. Army soldiers man a sniper position in Afghanistan in 2013.

Media outlets that have their priorities straight should prioritize stories not by the amount of page views, likes, or retweets they generate, but by their ultimate importance to our civil discourse. Sadly, however, that’s not typically the case. It took the deaths of four Special Forces soldiers and a political feud to make U.S. military operations in Niger newsworthy. It shouldn’t be that way. But it is.

Yet, call me naïve, but I still think my new profession is equally as important as my old one. Journalists, after all, have a unique and solemn duty to perform in a democratic republic that fields an all-volunteer military force.

The limited participation of the American population in the armed forces, the physical remoteness of the battlefields, and the technological advances in war-fighting technology have made war largely an abstract burden to the overwhelming majority of Americans. Therefore, it’s the responsibility of journalists to make the cost of war real and relevant to people’s lives. We have to make war personal.

We have to educate citizens about the costs of war to maintain societal hesitations to the application of deadly force. And we must hold our leaders to account by demanding that they thoughtfully and wisely make the case for war when it is just and necessary—without resorting to populism or warmongering.

Educated citizens aren’t so easily hoodwinked into simplistic, reductive visions of the threats facing their nation, or the reasons for their misfortunes. That’s why good journalism matters.

Operations aboard the USS George H.W. Bush to support the air war against the Islamic State over Syria.

Unequal Burden

The volunteer fighting force represents less than 1 percent of the total U.S. population. Consequently, the trauma and sacrifice of combat is shouldered by only a small, select slice of our country.

And only a small minority of Americans can truly relate to the experience of combat. Less than 8 percent of the U.S. population has ever served in the armed forces and only 1 in 5 members of the U.S. House and Senate is a veteran, compared with 3 out of every 4 in 1969.

A U.S. Army soldier in Khost Province, Afghanistan.

The overwhelming majority of Americans are quarantined from the real-life consequences of war. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates summed it up well when he said: “Whatever their fond sentiments for men and women in uniform, for most Americans the wars remain an abstraction. A distant and unpleasant series of news items that do not affect them personally.”

When the troops return we dutifully call them heroes. Some old vets might give them a handshake and a few candy bars when they step off the plane on their return. That’s how it was for me when I got back from my first combat deployment to Afghanistan.

I arrived at Baltimore-Washington International Airport late at night. The arrival hall was almost empty, except for some janitors polishing the floor with an electric floor buffer, and a group of about two dozen Vietnam War veterans handing out paper bags filled with cookies and candy bars to those of us in military uniforms streaming out from baggage claim.

One man with a gray mustache who wore a black hat that said Vietnam on it handed me a goodie bag. He then shook my hand. “Welcome home, son,” he said. “We’re all proud of you.”

I tried hard, and unsuccessfully, not to tear up. My war had been nothing like this old man’s. I spent it in the relative sanctuary of the cockpit where the enemy was usually nothing more to me than glowing black and white amoebas on a digital screen. I wanted to tell that Vietnam veteran that he was the real hero; he had endured a very different kind of war and had come home to a much less appreciative nation. But all I could muster at that time was a lame, “Thanks a lot. It feels good to be home.”

The old man smiled at me, then patted me on the shoulder. And that was it. A week later, I was back at work preparing for my next deployment.

A U.S. Air Force pararescueman in northern Iraq in 2015.

To be clear, the overwhelming majority of troops and veterans—myself included—don’t want special treatment, and they don’t want your praise. In fact, sometimes all the “thank you for your service” comments, while well intentioned, can make a soldier feel uncomfortable. Since, at the back of his or her mind are the constant memories of friends who made a much greater sacrifice, making us feel unworthy of the accolades. Still, the offers of thanks do send an important message—that the soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine hasn’t been forgotten. And that’s more important than anything else.

All our troops and vets want is for people to pay attention. Many don’t really care what you say, or how you say it. They just want to feel like the country hasn’t forgotten about them, or their friends.

They want to feel like their sacrifices were worth it. That the unrecoverable currency of their youths went toward a just and noble cause that, in the end, made our country and the world a little safer.

Reality Check

When I began a graduate journalism program at Northwestern University in 2011, just a couple months after I had left the Air Force, I couldn’t believe how unfamiliar many of my classmates were with military issues and the ongoing wars.

One student asked me if I had “caught” post-traumatic stress disorder. Like it was the flu.

Sixteen years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, U.S. military forces are still deployed in Afghanistan.

Some of my cohort couldn’t even locate Iraq or Afghanistan on a map. And these were graduate students at one of the most prestigious journalism programs in the country—they were the cream of the crop.

I entered the military when I was 18 years old to attend the Air Force Academy. So my time at Northwestern University as a 29-year-old was basically my first taste of civilian life as an adult. Once out of the bubble of military life, I was shocked to learn how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which had consumed a decade of my life, had been practically forgotten by the rest of the country.

In some ways, returning to civilian life felt like walking alone in a foreign country.

And that feeling hit a tipping point for me when my little brother, Drew Peterson, who was an Air Force captain at the time, deployed to Afghanistan in 2013.

The author, right, with his brother, Drew Peterson, together in Afghanistan in 2013.

In the days leading up to my brother’s deployment and while he was downrange, I remember feeling so frustrated, bitter even, about seeing life going on uninterrupted around me back in America. It was like I wanted to grab everyone by the collar, look them in the eye, and say, “My brother is in a war. Why don’t you care?”

The Killers

In September 2015 I visited a U.S. Air Force A-10 “Warthog” attack squadron stationed at an undisclosed location in the Middle East. Unexpectedly, I ran into two old friends of mine. I had gone through pilot training with them in Columbus, Mississippi, way back in 2007 when I was an Air Force lieutenant.

My old friends were now combat-tested A-10 pilots. Over dinner at the base’s chow hall they told me about the carnage they were inflicting on the Islamic State every day. They used all the familiar lingo and clichéd expressions common to military aviation. But there was a word they used a lot, which seemed to stand out from the rest: “hunting.”

Many U.S. soldiers have never served in peacetime.

In Afghanistan they had maintained a defensive mindset, they told me. The priority in that war was to defend U.S. troops on the ground with close air support. But in the air war against the Islamic State over Iraq and Syria, the pilots described their mindset as offensive.

In addition to close air support and bombing missions, the A-10 pilots also flew air interdiction missions in which they patrolled for targets of opportunity—essentially they went out looking for Islamic State militants to kill.

And they killed a lot. Sometimes one pilot would kill dozens of Islamic State militants in a single mission. Often, by strafing the fleeing enemy with the A-10’s 30 mm Gatling cannon.

What struck me the most as I talked with my old friends in that desert chow hall was how casually and humbly they talked about the killing they did. They interwove stories about wives and children back home with macabre stories about the war.

The pilots’ eyes seem to focus on mine a half-beat longer than normal as they matter-of-factly described strafing an enemy checkpoint, or killing Islamic State fighters one by one as they attempted escape. Sometimes, the pilot would lean back in his chair with eyes open wide, slowly shaking his head as he described the carnage he inflicted on the enemy.

But there was no remorse, not even the hint of it. And there was no questioning the justice of the war. The barbarity of Islamic State had reinvigorated the sense of mission for many deployed troops, who might have been dismayed by the hamster wheel wars we had been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The author, right, greets his brother upon returning home from Afghanistan.

The Islamic State’s snuff videos gave their mission a special sense of justice and urgency, which we had all felt in those early years after 9/11, but somehow lost over time.

That same mindset echoed in the attitudes of many other U.S. servicemen and women I’ve met in the intervening years. Our troops might not necessarily believe that the wars will be won anytime soon, but they all seemed to believe in what they were fighting for.

And, although those A-10 pilots had absolute faith in the justice of their cause, they also suspected people back home didn’t understand the seriousness of the threats that face our nation, as well as the scale and ferocity of our military’s unending operations to keep those threats at bay.

“People back home have no idea,” one pilot told me. “But maybe it’s better that way. Reality would scare the shit out of most people.”

Force for Good

In February 2015, I joined a U.S. Army Stryker convoy as it traveled 1,100 miles from Estonia, down through Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and into the Czech Republic.

The convoy was called Operation Dragoon Ride; it was meant to show U.S. resolve to defend NATO’s eastern members from Russian aggression.

Citizens of NATO’s Baltic countries warmly greeted U.S. soldiers during Operation Dragoon Ride in 2015.

Along the way, thousands of people lined the roadside waving U.S. flags. Fathers had children on their shoulders. Young women blew kisses to the U.S. troops. At each stop, no matter how small the village, hundreds of people gathered to meet the soldiers and get selfies with them.

I wish you could have seen it; it would have made you proud to be an American.

Maintaining a dominant military with a global presence is not just about national defense or international stability. Our military is also the torchbearer for our country’s values, and a beacon of hope for people fighting for their freedom around the world.

That’s what our men and women in uniform fight for. That’s what they’re willing to die for.

It shouldn’t take a tragedy or a political feud to remind us of that.

Portrait of Nolan Peterson

Nolan Peterson

Nolan Peterson, a former special operations pilot and a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, is The Daily Signal’s foreign correspondent based in Ukraine. Send an email to Nolan. Twitter: @nolanwpeterson.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Who Deserves the Drug Cartels’ MVP Award? The growing list of those feeding the opioid crisis.

There has been a long-standing debate as to whether or not marijuana is a “gateway drug” to hardcore drugs.  However, there is no such debate about whether abused prescription opiates are gateway drugs to heroin and fentanyl — they are.

Today America finds itself suffering from the worst heroin epidemic in history.

The unprecedented numbers of Americans who have become addicted to prescription opiates provide the drug cartels with more potential “customers” than ever before and, as I noted in an article awhile back, Obama’s border failures have only made their business easier.

There are other parties who bear blame for the creation of this crisis as well. On Sunday, October 15, 2017 the CBS News program, “60 Minutes” aired an infuriating report, “Ex-DEA agent: Opioid crisis fueled by drug industry and Congress.”

That “ex-DEA agent” is Joe Rannazzisi who headed the DEA’s Office of Diversion Control, the division that regulates and investigates the pharmaceutical industry. According to the 60 Minutes report, “Rannazzisi tells the inside story of how, he says, the opioid crisis was allowed to spread — aided by Congress, lobbyists, and a drug distribution industry that shipped, almost unchecked, hundreds of millions of pills to rogue pharmacies and pain clinics providing the rocket fuel for a crisis that, over the last two decades, has claimed 200,000 lives.”

A subsequent Washington Post editorial detailed how the situation unfolded:

A DEA effort was undertaken in the mid-2000s to target drug distribution companies that were shipping unusually large volumes of opioids. For example, one midsize distributor had shipped 20 million doses to pharmacies in West Virginia over five years; 11 million doses went to one county alone with a population of 25,000 people. Some pharmacies in Florida were nothing more than illicit drug dens, with streams of customers arriving in vans from Appalachia. “Back home, each 30-pill bottle of oxycodone was worth $900,” The Post reports. By going after the distributors, the DEA hoped to stanch this deadly trade. The DEA brought at least 17 enforcement cases against 13 drug distributors and one manufacturer under a hard-charging head of the Office of Diversion Control, Joseph T. Rannazzisi.

Then the rules changed. The DEA originally could freeze drug shipments that posed an “imminent danger” to the community, giving the agency broad authority to act. In 2014, the industry launched an effort to slow enforcement by changing the standard. The legislation was sponsored by Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.) and aided by former DEA officials who went through the revolving door to help the drug companies.

The 60 Minutes report and a parallel eye-opening investigative report published by the Washington Post sent shockwaves around the country and resulted in Pennsylvania  Congressman Tom Marino issuing a statement requesting that President Trump withdraw his name from consideration to lead the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) as the so-called “Drug Czar.”

Although I was an INS special agent, I had a front row seat to America’s purported “War on Drugs.” In 1988 I became the first INS special agent to be assigned to DEA’s Unified Intelligence Division (UID) in New York City.  In 1991 I was promoted to the position of Senior Special Agent and assigned to the Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) where I remained for the balance of my career, working with the DEA, FBI and other federal and local law enforcement agencies and the law enforcement agencies of other governments.

I did not generally participate in DEA investigations into so-called “diversion” cases because those investigations rarely involved foreign nationals.  However, what the excellent 60 Minutes report did not discuss was how, all too often, hapless patients who became hooked on prescription opiates were either unable to get more prescriptions for those drugs or were unable to continue to pay for those expensive drugs and, consequently, some of these desperate addicts have resorted to committing violent robberies at local pharmacies. Others resorted to cheaper street drugs such as heroin.

Heroin is not produced in the United States.  Every gram of heroin present in the United States provides unequivocal evidence of a failure of border security because every gram of heroin was smuggled into the United States. Indeed, this is precisely a point that Attorney General Jeff Sessions made during his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on October 18, 2017 when he again raised the need to secure the U.S./Mexican border to protect American lives.

Immigration laws provide important weapons that can and must be used against transnational gangs, drug trafficking organizations and international terrorists and their organizations.  This was made abundantly clear to me during my assignments with UID and then OCDETF.  Yet this commonsense fact is willfully discounted and denied by politicians from both political parties and at all levels of government.

Smugglers are smugglers.  Brutal human traffickers often engage in drug smuggling and, in fact, often force smuggled aliens to carry drugs on them, earning such aliens the nickname “mules.”  They are literally used as beasts of burden.  This is not only the case along the violent and porous U.S./Mexican border but at our nation’s international airports and seaports as well.

Because the smugglers are engaged in moving contraband into the United States from foreign countries, most of the smugglers are aliens, as are those who hold the highest positions within the drug trafficking organizations.  Immigration laws could be brought to bear with great success against these smugglers, yet the number of immigration law enforcement officers has always been very low, further hampering efforts to use immigration laws to maximum advantage.

I began my career with the INS in 1971 as an Immigration Inspector at JFK Airport.  Back then I became aware of individuals who attempted to smuggle narcotics into the United States by swallowing balloons and condoms which had been stuffed with narcotics.  A ruptured balloon or condom would almost always cost the life of the person who had swallowed it.

Drug money enriches the coffers of the banks and money remitters that transmit the proceeds of narcotics transactions.  They are the “silent partners” in this hugely profitable criminal enterprise.  Yet while banks often pay huge fines, few bankers are ever prosecuted.

Furthermore, drug money washes through Wall Street, the real estate industry and permeates our economy.

On September 10, 2012 the New York Times reported that HSBC was forced to pay $1.92 billion to settle charges of money laundering.  No one could argue that they paid a huge fine, until you consider the final paragraphs in the report:

Congressional hearings exposed weaknesses at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the national bank regulator. In 2010, the regulator found that HSBC had severe deficiencies in its anti-money laundering controls, including $60 trillion in transactions and 17,000 accounts flagged as potentially suspicious, activities that were not reviewed. Despite the findings, the regulator did not fine the bank.

During the hearings this summer, lawmakers assailed the regulator. At one point, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, called the comptroller “a lap dog, not a watchdog.”

The July 11, 2016 report by the House Republican Staff of the Committee on Financial Services on the topic, “Too Big To Jail:  Inside the Obama Justice Department’s Decision Not To Hold Wall Street Accountable” focused on failures of the Obama Justice Department to effectively deal with massive violations of laws pertaining to money laundering and other crimes that have national security implications.

It is my contention that not unlike the way that DEA lost its authority to block the shipments of opiates when it is apparent that community safety is jeopardized, we have seen, for decades, parallel efforts to prevent the effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws and the securing of our nation’s borders in, what I have come to refer to as, Immigration Failure – By Design.

“Sanctuary cities” and now “sanctuary states” have crippled efforts to use immigration laws to combat violent transnational gangs, drug trafficking and human smuggling and even undermining national security.

On August 11, 2017 Fox News posted the incredible article, “Los Angeles Targets Contractors Who Might Work on Border Wall.”  The city of Los Angeles and the state of California have become sanctuaries and are now seeking to “blacklist” American companies that accept contracts from the federal government — particularly when such companies have worked to help stem the flood of heroin and other dangerous drugs into the United States along with aliens engaged in criminal and/or terror-related activities.

The drug trade and drug addiction are synonymous with death and violence.  Drug money is “blood money” funding criminal and terrorist organizations.  Our leaders must be made to accept that effective immigration law enforcement is a vital element of the “War on Drugs.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Living in Trump Country USA

For those of you who haven’t heard, Mary and I moved from Florida to a tiny town in West Virginia to be closer to our parents. We are experiencing wonderful culture shock. I am not a fan of the winding mountain roads. Supermarket and hardware stores are over 20 miles away. And yet, we unexpectedly love our new heavenly haven of Americana.

I am one of around 20 blacks in the population of 500. Everyone from the town hall to the bank, post office and country store knew we were the Marcuses who “bought the white house”.

Virginia brought us homemade bread. Ron brought us corn from his garden which he promised to be the sweetest we have ever eaten. Ron was correct. Old men Charlie and George stopped by to welcome us. Peggy knocked on our front door bearing a gift of a homemade apple pie.

Mary purchased 3 huge real tomatoes for $2 from a road side vendor’s garden. The old man told Mary she could take as many tomatoes as she wanted. From another small vendor, we purchased locally raised grass fed ground beef. The sales lady said it will taste 10 times better than supermarket’s.

Handyman Randy is a hunter. Randy said he’ll keep us stocked with venison. I thought Randy would be impressed that a member of my family hunts with a bow and arrow. Randy explained that he prefers using a gun because if the hunter’s arrow does not hit the perfect spot, the animal will suffer. Wait a minute, Leftists tell us that hunters are coldblooded SOBs who don’t care about animals. Randy obviously cares. While installing our ceiling fan, Randy said he needed to get more “wor”. Mary eventually realized he was saying “wire”.

The post office and public library closes for lunch. I stopped in the town hall to purchase a permit for the fence I planned to have installed. The clerk looking a bit puzzled said, “We’re pretty laid back here. You don’t need a permit.” The police department consists of two patrol cars. The school’s marching band of about 15 students marches past our house practicing. They sound good.

On Sundays from our front porch, we sometimes hear the choir of one of the five churches in town. The Potomac River is in walking distance from our house, past the guy’s place with the horses.

I haven’t gone fishing yet, but a kid schooled me on the best fishing spots.

Driving around town, we shamefully laughed seeing a lawn sign that read, “Trump that B****!” Yes, this is definitely Trump country.

Mary and I attended a fundraiser at the fire hall for a needy family. The elderly husband has terminal cancer and wants to make sure his wife has a new roof on their home. The fire hall was pretty full.

Contrast my daily heartland experience with the putrid smelling Leftist hate dominating the airways and national political arena. Leftists bombard us daily with vitriolic poisonous lies for the sole purpose of removing Trump from office. It is truly amazing watching Leftists behave as if their entire existence is to create hatred for Trump.

Leftists’ relentless 24/7 efforts to brand Trump a racist wears me out. How on earth can Trump stand it? The answer is millions of Americans are praying for him. Despite Leftists’ best efforts, Trump is still popular and winning; dismantling Obamacare and more.

Trump is using legal executive orders to undo Obama’s illegal executive actions. Trump is simply defending the law and our Constitution. This has further enraged Leftists, making them even more committed to politically ripping Trump’s head off.

Leftists’ evil is glaring when placed side by side with the decent everyday Americans in my new hometown.

Mary and I are experiencing wonderful culture shock; friendly people who appear to love God, family and country. Trump country!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of President Donald Trump with West Virginia coal miners in February 2017, after striking down Obama-era surface water protection regulations.

The Value in Being Unreasonable

Paraphrasing my buddy, British playwright George Bernard Shaw, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world, the unreasonable man adapts the world to himself; therefore, all progress is dependent upon the unreasonable man.”

Jesus Christ was unreasonable enough to think that by challenging the social and class norms of his day, he could draw all men unto God; Samuel Cornish and John B. Russwurm, the founding editors of the Freedom’s Journal, were unreasonable enough to fight the vicious stereotypes about freed and enslaved Africans using the Black Press nearly 40 years before the Civil War; Martin Luther King, Jr. was unreasonable enough to believe that, through non-violence, he could melt the hatred in mankind.

Because of their unreasonableness, all four of the above-mentioned people had a global impact on the world, with their effects still being felt to this very day.

In a similar manner, President Trump, Steve Bannon, Congressman Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Congressman Ken Buck (R-Colo.) and Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), will have a similar impact, specifically on the Black community.

Transformative change rarely comes from expected quarters.

Jesus Christ was a lowly carpenter; Cornish and Russwurm were upstart journalists; King was a wanna be preacher plucked out of obscurity. Yet, their lives are still relevant to our world long after their deaths.

Trump’s presidential campaign was all about transformative change and totally upending the status quo and the establishment, globally.

Trump shifted the conversation about the Black vote from, “Will he get any Black votes?” to “How many Black votes will he get?” This type of paradigm shift is a marketer’s dream.

Trump’s recently departed senior adviser, Steve Bannon, is likewise transforming the Republican conversation about engagement with the Black community from “Why bother?” to “Let’s work together on common goals.”

A few weeks ago, I took about twenty, very successful Black and Hispanic entrepreneurs, some of them hard-left Democrats, to meet with Bannon, and without exception, they all expressed their willingness to join forces with Bannon to focus on creating a more conducive economic environment for the small and minority business community to thrive in. I will have a major announcement in this regard coming soon.

Reps. Gosar, Buck, McMorris Rodgers and I have all become fast friends based on a common belief that the Republican Party needs to do a much better job cultivating relationships within the Black community, especially with Black entrepreneurs.

They, along with their respective staffs, went all in with their support last month of my 527 Super PAC’s first annual economic policy forum. Black Americans for a Better Future gathered one hundred top Black entrepreneurs from across the country under the theme, “A Republican Vision for Creating Opportunities for Black Entrepreneurs.”

Gosar and Buck’s respective chiefs of staff, Tom Van Flein and Ritika Robertson, were invaluable in making our event a great success. Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers sent her staffer, Rachel Barkley, to announce to our group that she [McMorris-Rodgers] wanted to begin a long-term conversation with these minority entrepreneurs and invited us to work with her, as a member of House leadership, to actively be part of the legislative process on the president’s tax reform bill.

Barkley, along with her office colleagues, Molly Drenkard and Nate Hodson have been such a joy to work with. We will have a major announcement to make with their office by the end of this week.

The fascinating thing about Gosar, Buck, and McMorris Rodgers is that even though they don’t have many Blacks in their congressional districts, they recognize that recruiting more Blacks into the Republican party is incredibly important and the right thing to do; and it’s also good for America.

So, while many are looking for change to come out of Republican institutions like the Republican National Committee (RNC); the transformative change that Blacks are screaming for will more than likely come from the likes of Gosar, Buck, and McMorris Rodgers.

The reason they will be at the forefront of this change is because they are unreasonable people. They also encourage their respective staffs to be just as unreasonable as they are.

They are unreasonable enough to ignore people like famed Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who never misses an opportunity to pontificate about the futility of even paying attention to the Black vote.

So, to my readers, don’t believe the hype from the media and “establishment” Republicans about people like Bannon or Corey Lewandowski, Trumps former campaign manager, that they somehow are bad people.

Remember, these same establishment folks said Ronald Reagan would never be president nor would Donald Trump. These same consultants who go from losing campaign to losing campaign never will see any value in the Black voter. Their electoral track record proves it.

So, now I have built serious relationships with a group of unreasonable elected Republicans, consultants, staffers, and operatives, who are just unreasonable enough to believe that Black voters have value and are worth cultivating relationships with.

They believe that Black voters should have a voice and input into legislation that effects all Americans and are willing to provide that forum and opportunity.

So, why am I so optimistic? Because, I am very unreasonable.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Black Press USA.

Doctors baffled as mute man speaks after 8 years of silence

Nearly 8 years after a terrible wreck left a man unable to communicate, his power of speech has returned. George Bush was 62 when the mainstream media derailed his presidency, which resulted in him and his entire administration going off a cliff and tumbling to the ground.

“For eight long years he didn’t speak a word,” said George’s brother, Jeb Bush. Though his family continued to talk to him, they had no idea whether he understood them. That eased a few days ago, when he began responding to questions with grunts and by blinking his eyes.

On a doctor’s advice, the family had tried art therapy, giving George paints and canvases. He started to paint, which allowed him to communicate with the world, even if non-verbally.

To everyone’s amazement, those were mostly pictures of dogs and cats, which made some wonder if George had anything meaningful to say even if he could communicate verbally. It didn’t help that George developed a liking for sniffing the paint thinner.

But in October this year George made a major advance. When Jeb walked into his room to sniff some of George’s paint thinner, George suddenly said his first word in eight years: “Trump!” According to Jeb, that took them both by surprise. “You could tell by the look on his face, his eyes were kind of big,” said Jeb.

Later that day George added “asshole” to his vocabulary. “He would not have talked dirty before he wrecked,” his mother Barbara said. The next day, when asked what other words he could say, George answered, “I can say anything.”

That was when, on October 19, the family took George to New York and asked him to read something before an audience. George showed a remarkable ability to read from the teleprompter, which sent the entire American media reeling with excitement. It was a speech written by one of George’s former speechwriters who had survived the 2008 crash with a minor scratch. The speech was broadcast on all major networks and became an international sensation in medical circles.

According to some neurologists, however, what George may be experiencing is a disorder known as selective mutism. “It is an anxiety disorder when a person who is normally capable of speech cannot speak in specific situations or to specific people,” said an insider who wished to remain anonymous.

“People with selective mutism stay silent even when the consequences of their silence include shame, social ostracism, or even punishment. This was obvious several years before the crash, when George lived in the White House and remained mute when his voters and supporters wanted him to speak up,” he said.

Some researchers speculate that selective mutism may be an avoidance strategy used by a subgroup of politicians with social anxiety disorder to reduce their distress in difficult situations that they do not fully understand. At the same time they display other communicative behaviors, such as hand clapping, waving, or hugging babies.

“Time will tell whether George’s eight-year-long muteness was caused by brain trauma or it was a strategy to avoid a situation where he was in over his head,” the source said.

Though George’s speech remains slow and labored, he loves to talk and his mother is very proud of him.

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire column by Red Square originally appeared on The Peoples Cube. 

VIDEO: On Huma Abedin, George Soros/Hillary in Guatemala and DOJ Corruption

In this episode of “On Watch,” Judicial Watch Director of Investigations & Research Chris Farrell dives into Huma Abedin’s 2,800 emails of government records found on former congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop.

Also–what is George Soros doing in Guatemala?

Why does Hillary Clinton have an office there?

Finally, Chris explains how the Justice Department is bent on trying to turn America into a failed state.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Trump’s Not Replacing Bureaucrats Enables the ‘Deep State’

Is There Really a Case for Pres. Trump’s Impeachment?

The short answer, No.

Click for AUDIO version.

The short answer, No. The long answer requires an explanation. First, the president can be impeached for committing “high crimes and misdemeanors.” In the case of Richard Nixon in 1974, charges were being prepared for obstruction of justice, but Nixon resigned before he could be impeached. On the other hand, Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 for perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from the sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones. He was subsequently acquitted by the Senate. Both were embarrassing affairs, and both were politically motivated.

Today, we are hearing Democrats willing to press charges against President Donald Trump for various reasons, some claiming he obstructed justice in regards to the firing of former FBI Director James Comey. Others believe Trump is involved in a political relationship with Vladimir Putin and Russia to promote his business interests, his seeming determination to go to war, either with North Korea or Iran, and whatever else is bothering the Democrats at the moment. Despite all of the hyperbole of his accusers, the accusations are groundless. Nothing of substance has yet surfaced from the many Russian probes. James Comey’s actions are still being scrutinized, and even though there has been a lot of saber-rattling, the last time I checked we were still relatively at peace (aside from minor actions around the globe).

All of Mr. Trump’s detractors claim their calls for impeachment are not politically motivated. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is all about politics, just as it was with Nixon and Clinton (and, for that matter, Andrew Johnson back in the 19th century).

Since losing the 2016 presidential election, the Democrats have been in a state of denial, specifically that a Washington outsider such as Mr. Trump could win and implement an agenda in stark contrast to their own. Instead of admitting defeat, the Democrats accuse the president of foul play, even going so far as to concoct a myth about Russian influence. In reality, Mrs. Clinton and the Democrats should be investigated for selling political influence.

All of this is part of the left’s plans to try to discredit Mr. Trump and derail his agenda. Calls for impeachment are simply a farce aimed at attracting media attention but going nowhere fast. The question though remains, does anyone honestly believe they have a legitimate case against the president? Aside from the liberal zealots who would like to see this happen, No, nobody is buying it. Even the authors of such legislation know it is nothing but a charade and going nowhere fast. They simply cannot stomach his victory and are bound and determined to remove him from office before his term is over.

All of this jealous rage by the Left leads me to believe they are suffering from an acute case of penis envy. Maybe this explains their sense of inferiority and why they possess a castration complex towards Mr. Trump. Oy!

Keep the Faith!

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Huffington Post. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

The Humanitarian Hoax of Community Organizing: Killing America With Kindness

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Graphic taken from an Organizing for Action email.

Obama, the humanitarian huckster-in-chief, weakened the United States for eight years presenting his crippling community organizing tactics and strategies as altruistic when in fact they were designed for destruction. His legacy, the Leftist Democratic Party and its ongoing “resistance” movement, is the party of the Humanitarian Hoax attempting to destroy American democracy from within and replace it with socialism.

Radical socialist Saul Alinsky wrote his 1971 manual Rules for Radicals to instruct future generations of radical community organizers in effective tactics to transform a capitalist state into a socialist state. Obama became the quintessential community organizer.

In May 1966, The Nation published an article written by Alinsky’s contemporaries Columbia sociologists Richard Cloward and Frances Piven. “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” described the tactics necessary to destroy capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with unsustainable demands that push society into social chaos and economic collapse. Cloward and Piven took a termite approach to destruction that collapses structures from the inside out. They specifically targeted the U.S. public welfare system to instigate a crisis that would collapse welfare and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income.

David Horowitz explains that Alinsky and his followers deliberately,

“organize their power bases without naming the end game, without declaring a specific future they want to achieve – socialism, communism, or anarchy. Without committing themselves to concrete principles or a specific future they organize exclusively to build a power base which they can use to destroy the existing society and its economic system.”

David Horowitz has identified the humanitarian hoax of community organizing with great precision.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy used poverty as the weapon of destruction that would collapse America and replace the government with their idealized totalitarian Marxist model. They succeeded in bankrupting New York City for a time but there was not enough pressure to destroy the economy of the country. Supplying additional pressure required Barack Obama’s particular skill set.

The Cloward-Piven experiment in New York City revealed the weakness of their strategy. Community organizing provided insufficient economic pressure – success required ideological politicians and a colluding media willing to disinform the public to be successful. 21st century politics has embraced the expanded 3-step Cloward-Piven Strategy which includes gun control advocacy to eliminate any serious resistance to the effort.

Step 1 – Politicians must overburden governmental/social institutions to the breaking point.
Step 2 – Politicians must incite social chaos through divisive policies to make the country ungovernable.
Step 3 – Politicians must disarm the public so that they cannot oppose the leftist totalitarian state that will follow.

Left-wing liberal European leaders and America under Obama added uncontrolled immigration with divisive immigration policies to both overload their respective welfare systems and create social chaos. Obama, the humanitarian huckster-in-chief spent eight years implementing the expanded Cloward-Piven strategy of economic chaos. In 2007 there were 26 million recipients of food stamps – by 2015 there were 47 million. Obama’s open border policies and calls for amnesty flooded the country with illegal immigrants further straining the system and creating economic chaos. Illegal aliens overload our welfare system, cost American taxpayers a whopping $116 BILLION, and rob legal citizens of their jobs. Obama’s executive orders created extraordinary divisiveness by importing a population of immigrants with hostile cultural norms including jihadi terrorists.

Illegal immigration, the ascendance of Black Lives Matter (BLM), and the hysterical screams for gun control are the current weapons being used by the Left and reported dishonestly by the colluding mainstream media in their ongoing attempt to destroy American democracy. The Second Amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms was designed to balance the power of an armed federal government and prevent tyranny. Disarming the American people destroys this balance and awards the government complete control.

Cloward and Piven thought locally – the politicians of today think globally. The globalist elite fully support the Left’s expanded Cloward-Piven termite strategy to destroy American democracy and replace it with socialism. Why? Because socialism with its complete government control is the prerequisite social structure for the globalist elite to internationalize the countries, internationalize the police force, and impose enforced one-world government.

The Left are the useful idiots of the globalist elite who simply needed to add their own 4th step to the expanded Cloward-Piven Strategy:

Step 4 – Internationalize the totalitarian states into their new world order of one-world government that they themselves rule.

One-world government is the overarching goal and the underlying motive to destroy America from within. It was described in unapologetic detail 65 years ago by English aristocrat Lord Bertrand Russell in his stunning book The Impact of Science on Society. American democracy is the single greatest existential threat to one-world government and President Donald Trump is America’s leader. The globalist elite are desperate to stop President Trump because if Obama is exposed as the termite king it leaves them without their primetime huckster to continue marching America toward anarchy and social chaos with his “resistance” movement.

If the globalist elite’s deceitful efforts are successful, after 241 years of American freedom the world will be returned to the dystopian existence of masters and slaves because a willfully blind American public was seduced by Barack Obama, the quintessential community organizer, deceitfully promising hope and change for America. The Humanitarian Hoax of the termite king will have succeeded in killing America with “kindness.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Goudsmit Pundicity.

Is it time to ban silencers for automobiles?

Democrat lawmakers are pushing for a law that would ban silencers for automobiles after the FBI disclosed that Las Vegas shooter Steven Paddock had one of them on his car.

The silencer, also known by car enthusiasts as a “muffler,” is a device used to decrease the amount of noise emitted by the exhaust of a car engine. It is believed that Paddock used the device to drive to the Mandalay Bay Hotel without drawing attention to himself.

Former Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton brought the silencer issue to national attention when she tweeted the following after the shooting:

HillaryTweet.png“Thanks to the Republicans and the muffler lobby, anyone can buy a silencer for their car without a background check,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said. “I do not know why we are even having this debate – the right to own a muffler is not protected by the Second Amendment.”

Jimmy Kimmel also shamed the Republican Party and car owners during a ten-minute monologue on his late-night talk show.

“Thousands of people die each year by getting hit by cars,” a tearful Kimmel said in a wavering voice. “How many lives could have been saved had the victims been able to hear their assailant’s car coming?”

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire by Chairman Meow originally appeared on The  Peoples Cube.

Call for NFL to apply Affirmative Action in Sports

If the NFL is to prove their progressive cred, they must begin to bring social justice to their games and play by the same progressive rules that have been adopted in all other spheres of life.

First of all, they must “level the playing field” by building a slope. Let’s call it Affirmative Action in Sports.

Having a slope means that a weaker team playing downhill will have a fair advantage over a stronger team that plays uphill. If the stronger team is still winning, make them wear “the foot shackles of fairness.” The referees, just like Supreme Court nominees, must feel a moral obligation to rule in favor of the weaker team.

This means that eventually there will be no point in practicing, building strength, and learning strategies because all players will be given a fair chance to win. And if such rules will lead to the eventual death of football and the NFL, hasn’t it always been the real goal of the progressive movement?

The picture above shows a progressively leveled playing field for soccer, a more enlightened game favored by European comrades.

RELATED ARTICLES:

NBA Embraces Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action, Diversity, and Kittens

Affirmative Action impacts DNC (tribal council)

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire by Red Square originally appeared in The Peoples Cube. 

The Islam in Islamic Terrorism: The Importance of Beliefs, Ideas, and Ideology

Ibn Warraq, The Islam in Islamic Terrorism; the Importance of Beliefs, Ideas, and Ideology, New English Review Press, Nashville, TN, 2017

Book review

It has nothing to do with Islam… Mentally deranged, fragile personalities are hijacking a sublime religion… More people die in highway accidents… All religions preach violence and spawn fundamentalists…

Seventeen years since the start of the jihad-intifada, sixteen years after 9/11, Western societies are challenged to understand the connection between antisemitism, antizionism, and 21st century jihad conquest. These two studies address two major misconceptions about the source and nature of the sporadic violence that erupts in a range of intensity from the fatal stabbing of one or a few people in the streets of a European city to the mass murder of 3,000 in Manhattan.

Our societies are like an army with abundant ammunition… and no guns

Law enforcement, intelligence and security services, government leaders, judges, academics, commentators, journalists, and simple citizens are on the battlefield, fighting a rearguard operation, losing ground day by day, self-defeating, and briefed…by the enemy. This intellectual reversal, which is an essential weapon in the war against the West, goes unexamined because those that should be warning against it have in fact succumbed to the lethal narrative strategy of jihad conquest. They do not think rationally, they react Islamically to assaults of all varieties, on all levels, from hijab fashion that they glorify to atrocious murders that they cover with flowers, candles and denial. The intellectual ravages are concealed behind a curtain of consensus.

Nancy Hartevelt Kobrin rips away, with her Jihadi Dictionary, the misleading separation between Islam and the mental illness frequently advanced to explain jihad murder. Yes, these enraged killers are mentally disturbed. But their insanity is specifically Islamic. They are not lost souls that arbitrarily wandered into an Islamic network and committed crimes that are then falsely attributed to Islam. Kobrin, an accomplished linguist, psychoanalyst, and counterterrorism expert, exposes from A to Z the psychological mechanisms by which the sons of devalued, terrorized mothers turn their own terror into annihilationist violence against the Other. Specialists may debate certain points and references to a given school or analyst, but the lay reader is impressed by the clarity brought to the issue by the rigors of a highly developed discipline as compared to the media chatter that reports on this ongoing assault on our lives and freedom. The dictionary format brings sharply focused definition to details that distinguish jihad violence from others forms of criminality that, however morbid, do not further a collective project of conquest.

Precisely. Ibn Warraq outlines the framework in which this culturally induced madness furthers a universal open-ended project of world conquest. The “beliefs, ideas, and ideology” of the subtitle of The Islam in Islamic Terrorism, are enshrined in the Koran, extended in the hadith and sunna, clarified and confirmed by certified Islamic scholars, and translated into action from generation to generation, from the time of Islam’s prophet to the present day. The stultifying uniformity of Islamic doctrine is exceeded only by the horrifying savagery of its practices. Erudite, intellectually scrupulous, and totally proficient in both Islamic and Western languages and culture, Ibn Warraq draws on a wealth of textual and historical evidence to sustain his thesis [quote] that the Islamic war currently waged against the West-and including “wayward” Muslims-is not a reaction to any geopolitical situation, not provoked by any outside causes, not misdirected by a minority of hijackers that could twist a peaceful religion into a relentless war machine.

The defenseless newborn, thrust from the womb into a merciless world, bonds with the nurturing mother, overcomes his existential fear, learns to distinguish self and other and, fortified with trust, achieves the separation from the mother which is absolutely essential to the formation of a healthy adult personality. The jihadi cannot bond with a mother that is devalued, excluded, mistreated and most often cast aside by a polygamous husband. Devalued as a girl child, dominated and terrorized by her brothers, subject to sexual abuse and at the same time held to preserve the family honor under threat of death, excluded from free and equal social communication, the jihadi’s mother cannot interact in a healthy relationship to her sons. The boy is perversely attached to his mother, detests and reviles her, and transfers his positive feelings onto motherfied objects or persons that he protects with extreme violence. In a hopeless attempt to relieve his unresolved childish terror the jihadi feminizes and terrorizes his victims to a degree that knows no limits.

And, as Ibn Warraq brilliantly demonstrates, Islamic ideology gives the jihadi the framework within which to exercise his brutalized will. It doesn’t matter if the individual jihadi has studied the texts or learned the history, he has been shaped by his culture into a handy tool for the masterminds that know the tradition and devise the strategy to fulfill their Islamic obligations. The Muslim delinquent in a European city that steals, batters, rapes and in the worst cases kills does not need to know chapter and verse of the Koran that give him the right, nay the obligation to dominate, terrorize, and dispossess the infidel. And still they are so many that recite koranic verses and belt out allahu akhbars as they commit the handiwork prescribed in their holy book. Why, then, is it so difficult to admit the connection?

Guardian editor David Shariatmadari is a sterling example of the determination to blind Western readers to the truth. Apparently fearing no contradiction, he constructs barriers, plays with distorting mirrors, buries the truth under heavyweight bullshit, casts aspersions on unnamed contradictors whose unjustified accusations against koranic Islam don’t even deserve precise references. In one of his more laughable assertions he claims: “The media uses shorthand, focuses on the present and immediate past rather than the vast contemporary and historical context, and therefore nudges us towards the conclusion that there’s something dodgy about this faith.”

Not so! The media, with rare exceptions, assumes like Shariatmadari that readers know nothing about the vast contemporary and historical context, and will believe him when he says “the history of jihadi terrorism is so very short: this is emphatically a late 20th and early 21st century phenomenon.”

Will The Guardian accept a rebuttal by Ibn Warraq whose command of the vast contemporary and historical context is unmatched? You can practically see him in the act of research, digging ever deeper and wider, to corroborate and enlarge his original reference, each name leading to another, each connection validating his hypothesis, sparing no effort to establish the uninterrupted chain of totalitarian oppression in the name of Doing Right and Forbidding Wrong. Decapitation, mutilation, iron discipline, zealous imposition on every hour every minute every gesture of the Muslim’s life, in a horrifyingly familiar pattern constantly repeated, endlessly renewed in the name of the prophet, of purity, of the koran.

Kobrin in alphabetical order, Warraq in chronological order, each with impressive mastery of the subject gives us a compact, coherent, comprehensive argument that permits an intelligent approach to a life and death subject that suffers from offhand treatment and deliberate or naïve misconceptions. In the night of April 4th, in the Belleville neighborhood of Paris, at least six armed policemen present in the building stood down while Kobili Traoré was torturing and battering his Jewish victim, Sarah Halimi. By the time the commandos arrived, he had already thrown her to her death from the third story balcony. Informed sources with access to the police report say they did not intervene because they feared the assailant was a terrorist. Why? Because he had been pacing around the apartment of his Malian neighbors, the Diaras, reciting koranic verses. Unfortunately, this awareness of the Islam in Islamic terrorism led to a paralysis of law enforcement. Subsequently, authorities remanded the killer to a hospital because of his mentally deranged condition. The state’s attorney waited more than five months before adding the aggravating circumstances of antisemitism to the charges brought against Traoré, though the killer knew his victim was Jewish. He’d already had the occasion to call her a dirty Jew! And he boasted, after the murder, that he had killed the neighborhood shietan. Do we know exactly which koranic verses he was reciting?

Was he, like Imam Ammar Shahin of the Islamic Center of Davis (California) chanting that the Jews must be annihilated down to the last man, woman, and child? Was it the rock and stone surah (described in a Daily Mail article as a medieval notion, as if it had long been abandoned)? The Center explained that the imam was not anti-Semitic; he was only referring to the Jews that kept the Muslims from praying at the al Aqsa mosque.

Yes, it was the height of the Temple Mount crisis. A Muslim man in the hostile crowd milling around at the Lion’s Gate declared to the world, via an i24 news roving camera, “The mosque is our honor…they mustn’t touch a hair [on her head].” This was a striking echo of Kobrin’s “Mosque” entry: “….The mosque is an unconscious representation of the mother’s breast according to Shahin Najafti, an Iranian rapper” targeted by death threats in retaliation for his record jacket picturing the mosque as a female breast. Kobrin concludes, “Picture a frightened little boy clinging hysterically to his mother’s skirt. This is the image often perceived when Muslims feel that their mosque is under attack. The heroic mother is a jihadi defense against the devalued, shameful female.” [pp 157-8]

The loose mouths and idle minds that pass for reliable commentators in our day were blaming Israel for turning a geopolitical conflict into a religious war. How? By asserting sovereignty on the Temple Mount (that the ignorant call the “mosque compound”). This is the same line of reasoning that blames jihad on the evil deeds of the wicked West. I dare say that it is impossible to come back with that kind of argument after reading Ibn Warraq. The sheer weight of undeniable evidence destroys the prevailing scatterbrained approach.

Ibn Warraq entertains and rebuts every evasive argument put forth today to protect Islam from the scrutiny that the current intensification of jihad conquest imposes. Citing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion that Islam is inimical to the West [p 34], Ibn Warraq firmly establishes the scriptural origins of Islamic antisemitism: “Islamic antisemitism is not a modern creed derived from Nazism…” and observes wryly “…Western pundits seemed to have acquired a deeper knowledge of Islam than Islamists such as Abdullah Yussaf Azzam, the founder of Al Qaeda.” [p 53]

The principle of Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong justifies the most atrocious oppression and brutal violence, from the origins of Islam to the present day. While the pundits grab at straws, Ibn Warraq deepens and broadens his research. Every affirmation is supported by massive evidence. One would have to study for decades to even hope to refute these arguments, because theology is confirmed by reality down through the ages. For example, the great Islamic theologian, Al Ghazali (12th century), a major Sufi, that elaborates in chilling terms the application of this obligation to command right and forbid wrong, stands as an inspiration to modern day Islamists.

The know-nothings object: It’s a question of interpretation. There’s violence in the Bible, violence in the Koran and, besides, jihad really means inner struggle. On the contrary, says Ibn Warraq; under Islam, life is a closed book. [p.95] And jihad is defined and interpreted as the obligation to impose Islam to the ends of the earth by all means necessary. “Thus, to drive home the importance of jihad I have had recourse to every kind of scholarly evidence available.” [p 101] Another implacable demonstration that demolishes the quivering apologetics of irresponsible opinion-makers.

Naïve hopes, too, can be misleading. In the heat of the Temple Mount melodrama (July 2017) a message from a Saudi sheik reportedly calling for an alliance with Israeli in the combat against terrorism caused great excitement in some circles. Not surprising, in the light of the ongoing split between two major Arab-Muslim blocks, and a certain shared interest between the Saudis and the Israelis in the face of Iranian ambitions for regional hegemony…and beyond. But the reader of Ibn Warraq was immediately alerted to the Saudi sheik’s reference to Ibn Taymiyya as theological justification for this seemingly courageous position. In fact Ibn Taymmiya, noted for his opposition to quietism, is an inspiration for current day jihadists. “To those who prefer fasting, the vigils, the silence, the solitude…we should say that jihad is far more demanding. It is self-sacrificing…exposing oneself to death.” [p 201]

We can only mention here a few milestones on Ibn Warraq’s complete tour of fundamentalist Islam down through the ages, and the ties that bind theologians, jurists, theoreticians and authorities from the earliest times to the present thrust of jihad conquest. The sixteenth century Ottoman priest, Birgili, inspired the Qadizadeli movement “during which simple smoking infractions…often resulted in execution by ‘dismemberment, impaling, or hanging. His works are popular with Salafi and Wahabi groups to this day.” [pp 210-11]. Contrary to accepted wisdom, writes Ibn Warraq, Wahhabism was neither anticolonialist nor nationalist but rather one more example of the return to original purity, the rejection of bida (innovation) and shirk (polytheism, false gods) [p 223]. Century after century the same themes recur with the repetition obsession characteristic of Islam, repeatedly producing the same destructive consequences. The Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik, author of a modern guide to Islamic jihad, recommends: “Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end itself./ To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy, it is essential…to dislocate his Faith.” [p 274]

In a chapter drawn in a large part from the work of the late Barry Rubin and Wolfgang G. Schwartz, Ibn Warraq refutes the idea made popular by Matthias Küntzel that modern Islamic antisemitism was transfused from Nazism. As everything that had come before, he demonstrates thoroughly and meticulously the specifically Islamic roots of Jew hatred. “The grand mufti Haj Amin Al-Husaini advocated genocide even before the Nazi government did so.” [p 289] In Al-Husaini’s own words, “Do not rest until your land is free of the Jews. Do not tolerate the plan of division for Palestine has been an Arab land for centuries and shall remain Arab.”

The next chapter is devoted to the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sayyd Qutb, another zealous combatant for Doing Good and Forbidding Wrong, another ideologue whose embrace of the purity of the origins generates suffocating oppression, destruction, and atrocities. Like Ibn Taymiyya, Qutb argues for all-out military jihad. He dismisses those who interpret Islamic jihad in the narrow sense of defensive wars: they “lack understanding of the nature of Islam and its primary aim: to spread the message of Islam throughout the world.” [p 305]

The concluding, briefer chapters are no less enlightening. In a chapter on Muhammad Abd al-salam Faraj, Ibn Warraq draws the last work of the late Johannes J. G. Jensen, Neglected Duty, a translation of the creed of Sadat’s assassins that, states Jansen: “contains all the ideological material needed to justify the attacks of 9/11 or any other recent act of terror committed to frighten non-Muslims.” It equally explains the criminal behavior of immigrant youngsters in European cities that see “Islam as license to kill, rob, and commit arson.” [p 309]

And so on and so forth: Abdullah Azzam, born in the West Bank-holding a BA, MA, and PhD from Al Azhar University-perpetuates the koranic tradition of loving death as others love life: “History does not write its lines except with blood. Glory does not build its edifice except with skulls.” Scholar’s ink and martyr’s blood “until there remain only Muslims or people who submit to jihad.” Azzam opens the first chapter of his best known tract, Defense of the Muslim Lands, with a quote from Ibn Taymiyya: “The first obligation after …right belief is the repulsion of the enemy aggressor who assaults the religion and the worldly affairs.” [p 317]

Ibn Warraq’s thorough, comprehensive, meticulous study of Islam brings us step by step to contemporary figures -Arafat, al-Assad,, al-Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, bin Ladin, Khomeini, Ahmadinejad, and the “Islamic totalitarian nightmare” of Iran. The state terrorism achieved by the Islamic Republic, writes Ibn Warraq, follows naturally from the implementation of Islamic laws, “precisely the thesis I set out to demonstrate.” [p 346] In a stunning recapitulation, he summarizes the long line of inspiration of contemporary jihad from the origins of Islam to the Islamic State (Daesh) and beyond and so close to home, to the threat of: “…large scale immigration into the West from Muslim nations…of [hostile immigrants] who have no desire to learn why the West became so rich and tolerant, and certainly have no desire to assimilate.” [p 354] Ibn Warraq-one of the earliest, most proficient and learned of contemporary apostates-warns the West that defeated two totalitarian systems in the twentieth century should “prepare to confront another such ideology in the twenty-first century.” [p 355]

EDITORS NOTE: This book review by Nidra Poller originally appeared in Family Security Matters. Under creative Commons License: Attribution

Look Who’s Judging Now

There sure is a lot of judging going on in New York and Hollywood right now. Places that pride themselves on non-judgmentalism. Movie mogul Harvey Weinstein has been accused of – and admitted to – sexually harassing and physically assaulting actresses and other women for decades. Many are saying it was an open secret in the movie business. Weinstein may not be a household name, but he is considered one of the most powerful people in Hollywood. It took a few days, but Hollywood liberals have now taken to social media to openly judge Weinstein’s actions as wrong. A lot of people are calling him a pig, a monster, and worse. That’s right, these secular progressives who don’t believe in judging are on their moral high horse.

I have often said that the favorite Bible verse of those who don’t believe the Bible is Matthew 7:1 where Jesus says: “Judge not, that you be not judged.” As with most verses in the Scripture, it’s helpful to read the before and after so that the meaning is in proper context. Read in context, it is clear that Jesus is warning against self-righteousness and hypocrisy. He is not preaching sexual freedom. But in popular culture, what happens to this idea of not judging is that whenever a Christian points out that a certain behavior is immoral or sinful according to the Bible, then that person or group of people is immediately attacked by those who don’t believe the Bible, and called “self-righteous” or “religious fanatics.” And who isn’t against self-righteousness? It’s one of the most off-putting personality traits someone can have. People who practice self-righteousness or a “holier than thou” attitude, usually don’t have many friends. But it is ironic that people who do not believe the Bible to be the final authority on morality do feel the need to point out to people who do how their theology is wrong.

In fact, some of those folks are reading this now and are about to post a message against Tim Wildmon for being a self-righteous man who tries to tell other people how to live. These folks of course will be passing judgment on me declaring that I should not be passing judgment when really I haven’t passed any judgment at all in this particular column. I have only written about the issue of passing judgment. So if you are going to post a message about Tim Wildmon passing judgment please wait until the next column when I really will be passing judgment on someone I’m sure. Probably Democrats. But I digress…

If you think about it, it’s really not judging that people have a problem with. It’s judging negatively. For example, no one gets upset when someone says something complimentary about another’s behavior, even though by doing so, they have passed judgment. But it’s a judgment of affirmation. No, it’s only when they say something of disapproval that the offended party then comes back with “Quit judging me!”

The truth is that the Bible, including the teachings of Jesus, is full of judgment. It tells us what is good and what is evil. It tells us what is right and what is wrong. It tells us what is moral and what is immoral. It tells us what to practice and what to shun. If you don’t want to be accountable for your life and your behavior, it’s best to avoid the Bible. And many do so for that very reason.

Every day the goal of Christians should be to obey and live out what the Bible teaches both inwardly and outwardly. Sometimes we will fail because, as long as we are here on earth, we have to contend with the war between the spirit and the flesh. It is unnatural to deny the flesh, so by the grace of God we have to discipline ourselves to submit to God’s will. It’s also called self-control. This is a day to day process. This is also why humility is so important. Humility is the opposite of arrogance or self-righteousness, which brings us back to judging. We are all capable of doing bad things, sometimes very bad things. For that reason we should be careful not to think too highly of ourselves and pray-lest we also fall into sin ourselves.

Micah 6:8 says: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”

I judge that as a good verse on which to end this column.

Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association

P.S. If our mission resonates with you, please consider supporting our work financially with a tax-deductible donation. The easiest way to do that is through online giving. It is easy to use, and most of all, it is secure.

VIDEO: The Truth About Hollywood

Paul Joseph Watson published a YouTube video titled “The Truth About Hollywood” on Oct 15, 2017.

Watson states:

More and more people are beginning to feel jaded by popular culture.

Pop culture is defined as, “modern popular culture transmitted via mass media and aimed particularly at younger people.”

Hollywood has become the global trader in pop culture. Pop culture is miles wide but an inch deep. What has pop culture done for any culture? That is the question that parents, when they take their children to the movies, must ask themselves. What is the social redeeming value of the movie I am paying for? How does it benefit me, the parents, and our children?

QUESTION: What is the value system of pop culture?

ANSWER: It has none.

Pop culture and Hollywood are void of values, morals, responsibility and the worst voice of any culture or society. Values are derived from a moral society built upon long standing and proven beliefs and laws that hold the family in high esteem. Hollywood’s pop culture must tear down these beliefs, laws and the family.

Watch Watson’s short description of Hollywood:

What Is The Biggest Threat We Face?

So what is the biggest threat we face? It’s ignorance.

Seems it is most difficult to confront who we are, how we tick and then breaking the non-optimal and non-survival habits. We are habitual in nature. People are 100% disciplined and committed to their existing habits. Change your habits-change your life, change the world. Let’s talk about ignorance as the biggest threat we face and how to begin to overcome this. This link covers an important aspect of this subject and this link can help us identify truth from lies. A nation led by lies dies. Also be sure to pick up your copy of the newly released book Trump-“What One Man Can Do”. A link has been provided at the end of this post.

What Is The Biggest Threat We Face

I talked about this in “The Process” under “Discovery and the Evolution of Change”. Arriving at the truth: This is where one begin to question things as they are and begin to embark upon what can be an uncomfortable journey as deceitful lies are revealed and truths come to light. This is where the change really begins as one acquires a new operating basis as a free critical thinker and truth seeker. This is the first and most important grounding and empowering step.

We are a busy people. There are all the things and complications that life seems to place before us. It is most difficult in this fast paced world as we are bombarded with images and information to actually sort out and sift out fact from fiction. But we must. We must realize that the biggest threat we are facing is our own ignorance. Seek the truth.

“The searching-out and thorough investigation of truth ought to be the primary study of man”- Cicero, 106 BC-43 BC. I would suggest becoming a truth seeker. Become a critical thinker. Think for yourself. Question everything and break your habitual circuits of believing what it is you are being spoon fed. Forget about acceptance and group-think. Come to understand exactly which people and organizational structures are in control and wreaking all this global havoc and know who they are and what they are setting out to accomplish as their end goal for humanity. I wrote about this to some extent in this blog post titled “Creating A Better World For Posterity”. In order to shift the direction we are heading in and to have the pendulum swing in the other direction, we must combat our own individual ignorance, the biggest threat we face, then help others. Start now before its too late.

Free Book

Subscribe here and I will send you a complimentary copy of my 2015 book “Misconceptions and Course Corrections – A Collection of Critical Essays for Our Times”. This eye opening book may be a great tool to pass along to others in the effort to shift the pendulum from division to unity against the real merchants of chaos. And on a more direct political note, pick up your copy of my latest Donald Trump book, “What One Man Can Do”, 10% of all book sales go to the Trump campaign. Learn more.

Copyright © 2024 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.